I revisited this album and now I have multiple questions relating to these two songs that I would like clarity on if anyone has answers, I'll list quotes from the songs, followed up with my questions related to the lines:
​

Whitney's hurt, the purest soul I know, I found her in the kitchen
Askin' God, "Where did I lose myself? And can it be forgiven?"
Broke me down, she looked me in my eyes, "Is there an addiction?"
I said "No," but this time I lied, I knew that I can't fix it
Pure soul, even in her pain, know she cared for me
Gave me a number, said she recommended some therapy
I asked my momma why she didn't believe me when I told her "No"
I never knew she was violated in Chicago, I'm sympathetic
Told me that she feared it happened to me, for my protection
Though it never happened, she wouldn't agree Now I'm affected, twenty years later trauma has resurfaced
Amplified as I write this song, I shiver 'cause I'm nervous
I was five, questioning myself, 'lone for many years
Nothing's wrong, just results on how them questions made me feel
I made it home, seven years of tour, chasin' manhood
But Whitney's gone, by time you hear this song, she did all she could -'Mother I Sober'

(All relevant lines for most context)
1). This is the most confusing one to me. To my understanding this is the moment Whitney finds out about Kendrick's infidelity/lust addiction. It reads as though this convo occurred when he was 25 years old ("twenty years later, after I was five") so this would be at or around 2012-2013, which fits in with him saying Whitney asked him about this soon after the GKMC tour. Which he mentioned earlier on 'Worldwide Steppers'
"good kid, m.A.A.d city tour, I flourished on them stages, Whitney asked did I have a problem I said, 'I might be racist'"
So this kind of makes it sound like this was a conversation they had over a decade ago? The "I made it home, seven years of tour, Whitney's gone" line makes this more confusing because I would assume the GKMC or Yeezus tour or even the Drake one were the first ones he was a part of back in 2012/2013, unless he is just talking about 7 years prior to the original interpretation where he would just be doing random shows back when he was K.Dot. Unless he's saying this is when the conversation happened, they remained together until sometime recently they split, but this would be unsubstantiated. So personally I think it is clear when Whitney found out about his infidelity sometime 10+ years ago, however it's very unclear when or if Whitney is even really gone and if they don't live together, see each other, or parent their kids together. The meta perspective of her appearing on the album multiple times and being a part of the artwork, and posting a ton of her own self growth stuff on IG as well an Kendrick never really saying anything contrary besides this one line leads me to believe they're still very much together?
​

So I set free my cousin, chaotic for my mother's pain
I hope Hykeem made you proud 'cause you ain't die in vain -'Mother I Sober'

2). Obviously this is referring to Kendrick's cousin who is the parent of Baby Keem (who I always thought was Kendrick's first cousin, and not his first cousin once removed), but who is this cousin? Is this the cousin that was accused of touching Kendrick? I assume this isn't the same cousin from Auntie Diaries due to the similar age? Also do we know how or when they died? I feel like I'm missing something obvious. For some reason a Genius annotation says this is a female "his female cousin who’s the mother of Baby Keem" I'm not sure where this is concluded from.
​

"Mother cried, put they hands on her, it was family ties" -'Mother I Sober'

3). This is saying that someone in the family hit his mother, not that someone in the family was the one that molested his mother?
​

"Mother's brother said he got revenge for my mother’s face, Black and blue, the image of my queen that I can't erase" -'Mother I Sober'

4). Kendrick's Uncle beats up another family member to avenge what happened in the previous line above?
​

"I asked my momma why she didn't believe me when I told her "No"
I never knew she was violated in Chicago, I'm sympathetic" -'Mother I Sober'

5). I assume we have no further context to what happened here, whether or not this incident happened by someone in the family or not, just that it happened previously when she lived in Chicago before moving to Compton?
​

My Auntie is a man now -Auntie Diaries
Where is your uncle at? 'Cause I wanna talk to the man of the house -Family Matters

6). Final question regarding 'Auntie Diaries'. There was a little bit of discourse over Drake's line in 'Family Matters' regarding Kendrick's Aunt/Uncle. From my understanding, yes Kendrick's Auntie is a transman, but just because that's the case doesn't necessarily mean that he wants to be referred to as an Uncle. Is it reasonable to believe that because of the title of the song, the repetition of "My Auntie is a man now", and no other indication in the song, that Kendrick's Auntie retained the Aunt title regardless of transitioning to a man? (Technically making Drake's line incorrect/hurtful?) (Note: also in an interview around 2013 Kendrick referred to him as his Auntie then for what that's worth)

Inspired by a shitpost mocking Destiny's misuse of "who's," I figured I'd see what else was out there and goddamn. Obviously, I think that the work Destiny is doing to expose common debate strategies or logical fallacies is important, but reading through the section in his notes triggered my grammatical autism. I felt like an outside party reading through it would be a bit confused by some of the wording, so I tried my best to rework this section in a way that would be more clear to the average reader.
I'll edit other sections as well if this doesn't get me banned lmao
Debate Pervertry
1.When you accuse the other side of saying a thing, and instead of allowing the other side to explain or clarify, you immediately launch in on an attack of that particular thing.
1. Quote your opponent without context and immediately attack this statement without allowing the opponent to provide clarification.
2."Show, don't tell."
When you constantly refer to other books, speakers, videos, etc..."sources of authority" that you claim to be familiar with, without contextualizing or demonstrating an understanding of any of that underlying material. You are substituting an appeal to authority for an actual argument.
2. "Show, don't tell."
Substitute a mere reference to a book, speaker, video, etc. in the place of demonstrating your own understanding or synthesis of this source material. Invoke the name of an expert instead of using their work to shape your own argument.
3. When you intentionally say the name of your interlocutor incorrectly.
3. Intentionally referring to your opponent by an incorrect name (^{please god call this the Bournelli Identity please please})**

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause

5."The Clown Mirror"
Your opponent never seeming to be able to summarize your position, ever. You constantly having to criticize or refuse to accept ANY other characterization of your position.
5. "The Clown Mirror"
The refusal to accept your opponent's summary of your position. Never acknowledge a good faith attempt at characterizing your position under any circumstances.
6.The "Lazy Gardener," or, "Let's not get in the weeds" strategy
Oftentimes, when the opposition is lacking a thorough understanding of what's being said, they will oftentimes attempt to obfuscate away from crucial details by claiming that they "don't want to get into the weeds" or "don't want to get into technicalities", even though these particularly technicalities might be essential to justifying or attacking a particular argument.
6. The "Lazy Gardener," or "Let's not get into the weeds" strategy
When pressed by your opponent on crucial details of your position, brush aside an in-depth discussion of the issue and state "I don't want to get in the weeds" or "let's not get bogged down by technicalities." Dismiss crucial details as distractions to avoid betraying your own surface-level understanding of an issue.
7.The "Deaf Preacher"
When you refuse to engage with the argument and you just make big sweeping moral/virtue signal statements while avoiding any factual response to what was previously said.
7. The "Deaf Preacher"
Launch into a sweeping moral diatribe, praising your own virtues and/or attacking the morals of your opponent. Ignore any statements by your opposition and continue your sermon unphased.
8."Debate Edging"
When you constantly stack descriptive claims one over another that are clearly leading into a certain prescription that you never actually verbalize, causing other people to attack you on a prescriptive claim you've never made and allowing you to refute their arguments without addressing the obvious implications of what you're saying.
8. "Debate Edging"
Stack descriptive statements in such a manner that would lead an average audience to logically assume a prescription without actually saying it directly. Should your opponent assume this prescription as well, ignore the implications of your statements and attack the opponent for making an (oftentimes very reasonable) assumption.
9."Occam's Mallet"
When someone suggests that simply because a party benefited from something (or because they had something to gain something failing) that there must have been some sort of cohesive plot or scheme in order to bring about that particular thing, often involving highly subversive and unethical means.
9. "Occam's Mallet"
Attribute a plot, scheme, or conspiracy to any party which received a benefit from an action or event. Lead the audience to believe that no material benefit can exist without subversive and unethical tactics.
10."Moral Dodgeball"
Accusing someone of holding a different core value simply because you disagree with an applied position that they have.
10."Moral Dodgeball"
Accuse your opponent of holding a different core value simply because you disagree with an applied position they have. (Nothing really to change here!)
11."Robinhood Complex"
Always siding with the less powerful entity in any conflict, simply due to the amount of power both sides are capable of exercising.
11. "Robinhood Complex"
Take the side of the less powerful entity in any conflict by default. Ignore any complicating variables or extenuating circumstances and reduce the issue to an imbalance of power dynamics alone.
12."The Braveheart"
When someone poses a question about how a person should respond in a situation, where it's obvious that the person would need to act in a certain way to protect their interests, but the more privileged debater responds with "Personally, I wouldn't do this..." instead of acknowledging the need for the affected party to respond and protect their interests in a particular way.

1. "The Braveheart" (I'm actually having a really hard time figuring this one out. Anyone willing to help me out here?)

13."You're being so weird/obsessed!"
When someone does something that you do exactly and then you accuse them of being weird when they do it, e.g. making clips/compilations of what the other person does and then the other community creates something in response.
13. "You're being so weird/obsessed!" (or "Pot, meet Kettle")
Mislead your audience through clips or compilations of your opponent, yet dismiss the opponent as being obsessive should they or their audience respond to your characterization with clips or compilations of their own.
14."Death by a thousand anecdotes"
When someone is incapable of pushing back factually against a heavily data-driven argument and instead relies upon personal (or popular) anecdotes, or unrelated data, to make their point.
14. "Death by a thousand anecdotes"
If your opponent attacks your argument with data, tell a series of personal anecdotes or popular stories rather than provide data of your own.
15. "Tragedy of the Commons Sense"
Basically any time someone invokes common sense because they're unable to explain or justify their position in any other way.
15. Tragedy of the Common Sense"
If unable to explain or justify your position in any way, claim that your argument is simply "common sense" and refuse to elaborate further.

In season two, he goes to the hospital with Stefanie and is very eager to have tests done on him and is perfectly fine with moving about in the hospital.
Later, when Howard’s mom, Debbie, has a heart attack, he is far more hesitant (partly because of his aunt and uncle’s deaths, and also due to germs).
How did his past and present opinions flip around?

Hello all, I am a year 10 student. I am wondering if it would be possible to mark an answer that i did in the style of a paper 1 question 4. My teacher has read it however refuses to tell me the amount of marks I would get (out of 16) as it is unfair and she, and i quote, "isn't aloud".
The sources were about the death penalty/capital punishment.
Question:
Compare how the writers convey their different attitudes to the death penalty. In your answer, you should:

• compare their different attitudes.
• compare the methods they use to convey their attitudes

Support your ideas with quotations from both texts.
In Source A, the writer believes the death penalty is a vile and dehumanising form of punishment. The writer uses metaphors to describe the hanging posts as a "machinery of death". This suggests the huge mass of executions are inhumane and desensitising. This implies the hanging posts are being used to satisfy and prioritise the law by ending a human life in this way. The noun "machinery" highlights the systematic approach to the death penalty and, as brutal as it is, it is normalised in society. Whereas, in source B, the writer is in favour of capital punishment. The writer uses a range of statistics to reinforce that there is a "20 percent reduction" of sickening crimes, especially those against children. This strongly expresses that the writer, and the American public, believe that capital punishment is the only correct, logical and acceptable form of punishment. The reference of "child murder cases'' is particularly emotive and touching for the reader because they are small, helpless and innocent. This makes the reader recognise these victims as the most vulnerable and therefore needs to be protected by all. This highlights that the criminals deserve to feel the pain and suffering of their victims and have their life ended as a form of justice.
In Source A, the writer believes the death penalty is an uncomfortable, yet exhilarating, sight. The writer transitions to a first-person perspective when he informs us about his experience halfway through the extract. The writer does this deliberately to allow the reader to form their own opinion before sharing his own opinion. This opinion is established to be negative as he "confess(es) to a shudder". The verb 'shudder' suggests the horrorful experience he is having which expresses his discomfort. This highlights that the death penalty is traumatic amongst members of the public; especially when the execution occurs in public. Overall, the writer's purpose for writing this article is to inform others on how inhumane the death penalty can be. Therefore the writer’s attitude of the death penalty is negative and unsupportive of this law which is different to source B where the writer is in support of capital punishment. The writer uses a circular structure to link his opinion of the death penalty to the murder case of Ringo. By presenting Ringo’s crime at the beginning (and providing evidence of “reduced murder rates” in the middle) he is persuading the reader to believe that the death penalty is “morally just”.
If you have the time to mark it, that would be great. Also if you can, could you also say what I have done well and what I can improve on?

I was doing some digging around about the meaning of Cryo and it’s “ideal”, and stumbled across a few interesting connections. I am not sure if anyone else has found these connections already (from a quick check) – I tend to only hop on here when I have a crazy theory I want to share. Hopefully I am not rehashing something that's already been covered!
The main theory is that the power of Cryo, like Anemo, is related to Time.
To be more specific, I think Cryo may be the power that creates the "Seeds" that are carried by "the winds of time".
I came across this idea when trying to look into the "ideal" of Cryo.
From what we have seen in the game, all elements are tied to an “ideal”, and each “ideal” is tied to a deeper meaning connected to the world itself. To give some brief examples:

• Anemo – freedom, time and perhaps Death
• Geo – Contracts(perhaps between mortal and divine?) and perhaps history.
• Electro – Eternity and what is eternal, and Change is eternal or constant.
• Dendro – Wisdom, memories and knowledge through experience.
• Hydro – Justice, life and emotion.
• Pyro – War and rebirth and the erasure of memories (as seen from Arlecchino).

From what we know, it seems like the Cryo Archon’s ideal is likely to have been “Love”. So what deeper meaning does “Love” mean and how does it relate to ice or “Cryo”?
And then from there I kind of spiralled!
The main theory here is explained in the first two sections, and the rest of the sections I try and use this theory to explain other mysteries in the game. Those sections might be heavier in speculation.
The Meaning of Cryo
While I'm not sure I have a concrete “meaning” or understanding of Cryo yet, I came across a few interesting themes surrounding the Cryo Element:

• The descriptions of both the Large Cryo Slime and Cryo Abyss Mage mention their protective shields, despite the fact that similar enemies don’t mention this in their description (Geo Slime and other Abyss Mages)
• The Cryo Abyss Mage description also says that their body is vulnerable (hence its need for protection).
• Cryo Hypostasis gameplay has the Hypostasis create a shield while it is healing (protection while vulnerable)
• Tiara of Frost artefact description: “facing fatal flaws. Fatal flaws are born of a fear of death. Fear of death is born of having things and people to care about” (Fatal flaws are the “vunerability” to protect?)
• Tiara of Frost artefact description: “life as weak, and earth blanketed in unending ice” (weakness is a vulnerability – and also I am not sure if the ice is a bad thing here, perhaps the ice was meant to protect the “weak” life?)
• The Spirit Locket Of Boreas description mentions that Andrius let his power seep into the land to “protect” it.
• Childe who is from Shneznaya says “it’s all about family where I am from” (family and love are easy to relate to each other)
• Qiqi Vision Story: Qiqi has a Cryo Vision and apparently before she received it she missed her family.

To summarise, there seems to be themes of protection(perhaps preservation?),family, and vulnerability.
Thematically I can see the ties between these – we love our family(typically) and want to protect them, and the things we protect can be seen as our vulnerability(and/or, we protect things that are vulnerable).
So "love" inspires us to "protect".
Love and it's connection to "protection" is an important part of this theory.
Cryo and Time
There are a few instances in descriptions where both ice/snow/Cryo and time are mentioned together.

• Qiqi Vision story: before receiving her Cryo vision (while she was dying or on the verge of dying), Qiqi wished that time could stop.
• Cryo Hypotasis drop, the Crystalline Bloom, says: “Perhaps it is stagnant time, that never-thawing bosom, that is the essence of this undying flower.”
• Blizzard Strayer artefact set, Frozen Homeland’s Demise, says: “An ancient hourglass with fine powdered snow flowing in it. Even the coldest winter cannot freeze the flow of time. "The cold that descends from the sky can freeze time itself."
  • To me, this might be drawing a distinction between ice and “Cryo”. Like how Hydro and water are not considered the same thing because Hydro is toxic, as seen in the description of Hydro slimes. So normal winters can’t freeze time but perhaps Cryo can?

Furthermore:

• We are able to melt frozen boars in game and when melted, they are completely fine. It seems that they were literally “frozen in time”.
• We also have that quest with Xiangling, where we find Olaf who was frozen by a Cryo Regisvine 300 years ago - and seems to have survived this process unscathed. He effectively time travelled from the past to the future.

So overall, there seems to be a lot of talk about “freezing time”, and it seems like freezing a living organism can preserve them in a way that doesn't kill them (like in real life).
We have seen how Cryo might be related to the idea of “protection” as well, or perhaps preservation?.
So perhaps we can say that the Cryo element seems to be able to "protect" things from the flow of time?
“Seeds of stories, brought by the wind and cultivated by time. Stories brought on the wind will bloom into legends in due time.” - Sundial in Mondstadt related to the God of Time.
In this quote above, it says that “seeds” are brought by the wind/Anemo.
But what are these “seeds”?
While I can’t say exactly what they are, I think that perhaps these “seeds” are at least partially created through the powers of Cryo.
I came to this conclusion after looking at the themes that surround Cryo: love, protection and vulnerability.
These themes, to me, seem to apply perfectly to the concept or function of “seeds”.
A seed tends to need a protective shell, to shield the “vulnerable” parts within.
A seed waits for the correct conditions to sprout, remaining dormant otherwise.
This dormancy can be seen as being “frozen in time”. A seed is effectively “frozen in time” and won’t sprout until the correct conditions are met. This power of protection from time being related to Cryo may be similiar to how the power of Dendro is related to the power of dreams.
Also, remember that when asked about the Cryo Archon, Venti said that “500 years ago, I knew her well.”?
Sure, they are both Archons, but perhaps they were also close because either 1) they both served the God of Time or 2)Cryo Archon is a god of time (perhaps less likely, though).
So the “seeds” frozen in time and/or protected from time, by Cryo, are then carried by the winds of Anemo, to the correct moments that allow them to sprout.
The Love of the Three Moons
This part gets a little more speculative, but fun!
So the three Moon Sisters are suspected to be possible Gods of Time, and also seemed to rule over the Seelie in some capacity.
Love seems related to the fall of the Seelie – as the Seelie seemed to have been forbidden from falling in love with humans. It was after one of the Seelie married a “traveller from afar” that the Seelie fell – some catastrophe struck as a result, soon after this “marriage”.
With the added context that love possibly means or results in the protection from time – that could explain why falling in love with a human was seen as bad. Abusing your powers to protect a human from time sounds bad, for sure.
And maybe, just maybe, the “love” the Seelie had were finite in some way? Which would explain why they couldn’t dish it out to humans freely. Maybe, they had none of this “protection” left over for themselves after giving it away… leaving them to deteriorate and become the lifeforms we see them in today?
In fact, if this is true, then the Seelie gave their love to a “Traveller from afar” which sounds like it could have been an entity similar to the Traveller. The Traveller is said to be a star themselves.
What’s interesting about that is both the Abyss Sibling and the Travellers are stars, and they are possibly very old. In fact, in the We Will Be Reunited quest, the Abyss Sibling tells the Traveller that “I have more than enough time to wait for you, we’ve always had enough time.”
While this seems to be hinting that they have a lot of time, not necessarily immunity from time, it is interesting when you remember that the book Moonlit Bambo Forest says that the Moon Sisters “shared but one love, the stars of daybreak”.
If love is the protection from time, then it could mean that the twins have gained an immunity from the flow of time. Time does not affect them – as they have received the love of the Moon Sisters, who are possibly Gods of Time.
Khaenri’ah, Dainsleif and the Inteyvat
While the pure-blooded Khaenri’ahns are cursed with Immortality, they still seem to be under the effects of time. They don’t seem to be immune.
They seem to still be undergoing some sort of decay – whether it be their memories, mental state, or decaying “from within” (As Chlothar speculates).
HOWEVER – remember how Dainsleif said that he was able to resist the effects of his curse due to the presence of “it”? It was somewhere in the Chasm questline, where he was unsure how the Black Serpent Knights were able to retain some of their humanity without “it”.
Perhaps Dainsleif has also received the “love” of a Seelie/Moon SisteTime god (or whatever the Cryo Archon actually is)?
In fact, now I am wondering if this is also related to the Inteyvat flower, which would harden when In Teyvat, and then return to normal when back in Khaenri’ah.
Khaenri’ah might be located somewhere in the Abyss, and the Abyss seems to have a strange flow of time, after all.
So it might not be too far of a stretch that the Inteyvat flowers are also “protected from time” with this power of love/Cryo until the flower returns to the correct “time” – Khaenri’ah. Though that would also mean that Khaenri’ah is located in a different place in time – in the future or the past, which would be interesting. But probably not impossible from what we have seen in Ei’s second story quest and the Perilous Trails Chasm quest.
Possible Links between Paimon and the Tsaritsa
So there seems to be possible links between the element of Cryo, love, and protection.
The God of Cryo, who is potentially the God of Love and, by extension, potentially the God of Protection…hm.
Remember the “About Yashiori Island” voice lines?
In those voice lines, Paimon claims to be the “god of protection”.
Sure she seems cheeky about it, and was probably joking, but who knows at this point! She might have remembered something subconsciously or this may just be foreshadowing, etc, etc.
Either way, I started digging around to see if I can find any mythological links in real life.
A few interesting things I found:

• Aphrodite, the greek goddess of love, according to some myths, was born from sea foam. And we first met Paimon after we fished her out of the sea.
• Aphrodite seems to be related to the Cherubs (She mothered Eros, who together with its roman equivalent Cupid, influenced the iconography of the Cherubs) and apparently Paimon in the Ars Goetia might have been a Cherub (at least according to Wikipedia).
  
• Paimon in the Ars Goetia could “bestow dignities and lordships”. Genshin Paimon gives people nicknames – but the Tsaritsa bestows “new names” upon her Harbingers. Maybe a coincidence, but you could say that both of them “bestow dignities and lordships”.
  
• Paimon in the Ars Goetia is said to be able to create “visions” (as in dreams) and we do know the Tsaritsa’s Fatui have Delusions, which are fake Visions.
  
• Paimon in the Ars Goetia is also said to have the power of “acquiring and dismissing servant spirits” –perhaps the Fatui Harbingers?
  

I’ve already made a theory previously on this subreddit about the Tsaritsa and the Moon Sisters. So if Paimon is also related to the Seelies and/or Moon Sisters, perhaps these connections between her and the Tsaritsa is not too strange if the theory about Cryo and time are true.
In fact, the goddess Hathor is said to be the Egyptian version of Aphrodite, god of love, and from reading the wikipedia page, Hathor seems very similar to the Goddess of Flowers – who was a Seelie - and the Seelie served the Moon Sisters, who may have been gods of Time.
There isn’t much more for me to say here – I am not saying that Paimon and Tsaritsa are the same person, but just that I find it interesting that there may be some overlaps between the two characters. I can’t say for sure what this overlap means. Maybe Paimon is a fragment of the Tsaritsa, maybe Paimon was a servant of the God of Time along with the Tsaritsa, maybe Paimon is the God of Time and is therefore the Tsaritsa’s boss. Who knows. Just interesting.
Time and the Preservation of Memories
In the Parable of the Lethied Lotus in the Book of Sun and Moon, it says:
"A ship captain searching for the way back to the surface discovered a tribe of people who ate these lotuses. Some crew members stayed in that place. Others rejected that temptation."
In this story, staying where people ate these lotuses is said to be a "temptation". The title of this Parable described the lotuses as "lethied" which is related to the Lethe river of greek mythology, where drinking from it causes you to "forget". In other words, forgetting is a temptation they wanted to avoid.
This is in the same book that mentions the God of Time, and Enkanomiya, where they worshipped the God of Time.
Now, Ganyu, a Cryo character, uses Amos Bow, and the literal translation of this weapon, according to the wiki, is "Determination to Not Forget".
So perhaps this power of "protection" can also protect memories.
Since time causes memories to "fade" (best example, Dainsleif's own faded memory due to his long life) then perhaps this power of time immunity can also be used on memories.
TLDR:
Cryo protects things from time, and those things are then carried by Anemo. Cryo seems to have the ability to freeze things in time (possibly), or in other words, to protect them from the flow of time. The Tsaritsa, as the Cryo Archon, may have a deeper relationship to the God of Time (or she is a god of time – if you think that there are multiple aspects that rule different types of time).
There are also some interesting possible connections between Paimon and the Tsaritsa, which, if they are both related to the god of time, makes sense.
The twins may have also received some sort of protection of time, since they are stars and the Moon sisters loved the stars of daybreak.
Also this might also be related to Dainsleif and his ability to resist his curse somewhat, and Inteyvat flowers.
And this "protection from time" may also be used to preserve more intangible things - like memories.
Discussion/Conclusion
So what does “Love” mean in the world of Teyvat?
In Genshin, the power of Cryo, and therefore the power of love, may be the power to protect things from the flow of time. It protects things from the flow of time, creating a "seed", and that seed stays dormant or "frozen in time" until its the perfect moment for those things to “sprout”.
If true, this calls a lot of things into question.
The Tsaritsa’s plans to possible recreate the world may also link back to this idea of “seeds” – she may blanket the world in snow to make it a “seed” for the next world.
I also think that if this is true, then it is quite poetic that Shneznaya – the land of the Cryo Archon – is the last region in Teyvat we visit (Khaenri’ah probably/possibly not being counted as “in Teyvat” if its located in the Abyss).
Anemo also seems to signify death in some ways (Venti’s Story Quest), and if Cryo is related to the concept of “seeds”, then Cryo represents life or birth.
“Seeds brought on the wind will bloom into legends in due time.”
Anemo is death, and is the wind that carries the seeds, and Cryo is birth, the creation of the seeds.
We started the game in the land of Anemo, of wind, and death – we started our journey in the land of “endings” and, if this theory holds true, then the last place we’ll visit in Teyvat will be the land of Cryo, of ice, seeds, and birth.
We started at the end, and will end at the start.
That is more or less it. I hope you all enjoyed reading my descent into madness! Hopefully not too wordy as I have trouble making things concise and I was getting real tired towards the end of this ha ha. What do you guys think? I would love to hear any thoughts or input, or even corrections if I got some things wrong.

Taken from: https://www.theringer.com/movies/2024/5/21/24161120/greatest-movie-car-chase-scenes-ranked-furiosa-mad-max-saga
In honor of the imminent ‘Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga,’ we’re shifting into high gear to determine the best chase scene in cinema history
By Miles Surrey May 21, 2024, 6:30am EDTGetty Images/Ringer illustration
After wowing audiences with Mad Max: Fury Road, director George Miller returns to the franchise’s post-apocalyptic wastelands for Furiosa, the epic origin story of the eponymous heroine (now played by Anya Taylor-Joy), premiering on Friday. As the follow-up to one of the greatest action films ever made, it’s hard to overstate the hype for Furiosa, and that was before word got out about a showstopping 15-minute sequence that required nearly 200 stuntpeople and took 78 days to shoot. While Furiosa will have its own distinct flavor, as is true of every Mad Max movie, there’s one thing that unites these projects: intense, jaw-dropping scenes of vehicular mayhem. And what better way to honor the franchise than by celebrating what it does best?
Ahead of Furiosa’s release, we’ve put together our definitive ranking of the best car chases in cinema. There weren’t any strict rules in place, other than capping the list at 20—mostly for my own sanity—and limiting every franchise to one entry. (Apologies to Fury Road’s kickass predecessor The Road Warrior.) We also won’t discriminate against scenes that feature motorbikes, so long as cars (and/or trucks) remain part of the equation. As for what, exactly, constitutes a good car chase? Like list making, it’s bound to be subjective, but I tend to gravitate toward two key elements: the skill of the stuntwork on display and the ways in which a filmmaker conveys the action in relation to the story. (Also, the less CGI, the better.) Buckle up, ’cause we’re not wasting any time shifting into high gear.

20. Quantum of Solace (2008)

There have been some memorable car chases in the James Bond franchise: the first sequence featuring the iconic Aston Martin DB5 in Goldfinger, the corkscrew jump in The Man With the Golden Gun, the Lotus Esprit submarine in The Spy Who Loved Me. But I’m going with a somewhat controversial pick here: Quantum of Solace. There are many issues with Quantum of Solace—namely, it was one of the most high-profile blockbusters affected by the 2007-08 writers strike—but its opening scene isn’t one of them. Picking up right where Casino Royale left off, we find Bond (Daniel Craig) evading henchmen through the narrow roads around Italy’s Lake Garda. The frenetic, furious chase mirrors Bond’s sense of anguish after losing Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), the woman he opened his heart to, and his relentless quest for answers. It’s a thrilling tone-setter for Quantum of Solace and one that doesn’t overstay its welcome, capped off by Bond sending his final pursuers flying off a cliff:
If we’re being honest, though, it feels like James Bond has yet to create a franchise-defining car chase. Perhaps that’s a mission the newest 007, whoever it ends up being, can undertake.

19. Mission: Impossible—Rogue Nation (2015)

The Mission: Impossible franchise is no stranger to electrifying chase scenes, the best of which find Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt working up his heart rate. When it comes to action behind the wheel, though, Fallout tends to dominate the discussion—even on this very website. But I think the vehicular chase in Rogue Nation is being slept on. What we have is effectively two sequences for the price of one: The first finds Hunt pursuing Ilsa Faust (Rebecca Ferguson) by car through the narrow streets of Casablanca alongside some nefarious henchmen; the second sees him continue the chase outside the city on motorbike. (Adding to the chaos: Hunt had only just been resuscitated, and he’s clearly not all there.) In terms of death-defying stunts for the audience’s entertainment, a helmetless Cruise taking corners like a MotoGP racer is child’s play compared to his other exploits, but the actor’s authentic reaction to scraping his knee on the road underlines that there’s no one else in Hollywood doing it like him:
We’ll be sure to update this ranking if and when Cruise does something even more dangerous down the road, pun unintended.

18. Vanishing Point (1971)

A movie that counts the likes of Steven Spielberg and Quentin Tarantino among its biggest fans, Vanishing Point is the first of a few entries on this ranking that’s essentially one extended car chase. The film stars Barry Newman as Kowalski, a man tasked with delivering a Dodge Challenger T 440 Magnum from Colorado to California while eluding police across four states. One of Kowalski’s most memorable run-ins comes when a guy driving a Jaguar E-Type convertible challenges him to an impromptu race. Incredibly, we’re expected to believe the man in the Jag comes out of this crash in one piece:
Vanishing Point might not boast the impressive production values of other movies on this list, but considering Tarantino would go on to feature a white Challenger in Death Proof, its influence in the car cinema canon is undeniable.

17. Fast Five (2011)

Let’s face it, Fast & Furious has seen better days. Some believe the franchise’s dip in quality coincided with the death of Paul Walker; others are dismayed by the pivot from street racing to absurd feats of superherodom—emphasis on the Dom. Perhaps it’s a bit of both, but the very best movie in the series, Fast Five, manages to strike the perfect balance: It’s a relatively grounded heist thriller that nevertheless takes the franchise to ridiculous new heights. After Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and his crew steal $100 million from a Brazilian kingpin, they drag the entire bank vault holding the money through the streets of Rio de Janeiro, all while being pursued by authorities. It’s a delightfully destructive sequence that does untold damage to Rio’s infrastructure and features some of the most bone-crunching crashes committed to film:
If the Fast franchise is going to break out of its recent slump, it would do well to remember that there’s nothing better than letting its heroes live their lives a quarter mile at a time—no detours to outer space required.

16. The Blues Brothers (1980)

A good car chase isn’t reserved just for action flicks: Comedies can get in on the act, too. In The Blues Brothers, starring the recurring Saturday Night Live characters played by John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd, the beloved bandmates must prevent the foreclosure of the orphanage where they were raised by scrounging together $5,000. Naturally, that’s easier said than done: Along the way, the Blues Brothers draw the attention of neo-Nazis, a country-and-western band, and local police. While The Blues Brothers has amusing gags and musical numbers, its chase sequences with the Brothers behind the wheel of a 1974 Dodge Monaco are what really steal the show—and none are better than a climactic pursuit across Chicago. More than 60 old police cars were used in the film, some of which are wrecked in a comically over-the-top pileup:
The sheer scale of The Blues Brothers’ final set piece is commendable in and of itself—as is the movie’s commitment to treating real-life cars like a bunch of Hot Wheels.

15. Baby Driver (2017)

For good and for ill, Edgar Wright’s movies exude an abundance of style, and Baby Driver is no exception. Baby Driver is centered on a clever gimmick: The action works in tandem with its soundtrack because the film’s protagonist, Baby (Ansel Elgort), suffers from tinnitus and constantly plays music to drown out the ringing. When everything’s clicking into place, Baby Driver feels like a supersized series of music videos, and nothing hits quite like its opening sequence. Baby acts as the getaway driver for a bank robbery while listening to the Jon Spencer Blues Explosion’s “Bellbottoms.” The ensuing chase works around rhythms of the song, as if Baby’s Subaru WRX were the star of its own dance number. Take nothing away from the actual driving, either, which puts the rally car to good use:
Baby Driver’s gimmick stretches a little thin by the end, but it’s hard to deny the crowd-pleasing power of Wright’s film when it’s firing on all cylinders.

14. The Raid 2 (2014)

With a trio of kickass Indonesian martial arts films under his belt, Gareth Evans has established himself as one of the most exciting action directors on the planet—someone who seems most in his element staging positively brutal hand-to-hand combat. In The Raid 2, however, Evans also brought his signature brand of carnage to the road. While there’s some cleverly executed close-quarters fighting within the confines of an SUV, courtesy of Iko Uwais’s hard-hitting protagonist, what really cements this sequence’s greatness are the moments when Evans turns the cars into an extension of the characters’ fists:
This belongs in an entirely new category of combat: car fights. There are so many action scenes in The Raid 2 worth writing home about—the kitchen showdown is an all-timer—but the fact that Evans casually tossed in an unforgettable car chase shows why he’s one of one.

13. The Driver (1978)

I’ll say this for Walter Hill’s The Driver: It sure lives up to its title. In this stripped-down thriller—one where none of the characters have a name—we follow the Driver (Ryan O’Neal), a getaway driver who has become a thorn in the side of the LAPD. In the film’s best scene, we see its taciturn protagonist living up to his reputation. With the Driver behind the wheel of a 1974 Ford Galaxie, a cat-and-mouse game unfolds when a handful of police cars are hot on his tail. What I love about this sequence is the pared-down nature of it all: The Driver outwits the cops as much as he outraces them. (Though, ironically, that wasn’t entirely by design: As Hill later explained, an accident on the last night of shooting meant they had to cobble together what had already been filmed.) Frankly, you’d never know the difference from the finished article:
If the general vibes of The Driver seem familiar, that’s because it was a major inspiration for Nicolas Winding Refn’s Drive, which just so happened to feature an unnamed protagonist (Ryan Gosling) evading police through the streets of Los Angeles.

12. The Bourne Supremacy (2004)

The shaky-cam style of the Bourne franchise isn’t for everyone—just ask John Woo—but credit where it’s due: These movies know how to deliver a good chase scene. (A friendly reminder that The Bourne Legacy is an underrated gem with an awesome motorbike sequence to boot.) But there’s one Bourne chase that stands above the rest: the Moscow getaway in The Bourne Supremacy. After being wounded by the Russian assassin Kirill (Karl Urban), Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) hijacks a taxi, with both the police and Kirill in hot pursuit. This isn’t the kind of sequence that lingers on any one shot; instead, what makes it work is the frenetic nature of the editing, which allows the viewer to feel like they’re in Bourne’s fight-or-flight headspace:
If I’m being honest, I’m usually one of those people who doesn’t like the Bourne movies’ shaky-cam style, but when it’s executed with such craftsmanship, you can’t help but get caught up in its adrenaline-pumping power.

11. The Seven-Ups (1973)

Philip D’Antoni was the producer of two movies featuring Hall of Fame car chases, Bullitt and The French Connection, the latter of which won him an Oscar for Best Picture. And with his lone directorial feature, The Seven-Ups, D’Antoni sought to craft an iconic sequence of his own. The film stars Roy Scheider as NYPD detective Buddy Mannuci (elite Italian American name; I can practically smell the gabagool), who commands a unit handling major felony cases that lead to seven-plus-year prison sentences; that’s why they’re known as the Seven-Ups. Midway through the movie, when one of the team members is killed by two shooters who flee the scene, Buddy chases after them. The 10-minute sequence, which starts in the Upper West Side before moving out of the city, is thrillingly immersive, alternating between close-ups of the characters and wider shots of all the damage they’ve caused. But the chase’s defining moment comes right at the end, when Buddy narrowly avoids a grisly death:
The sequence isn’t quite at the level of Bullitt or The French Connection—very few are—but D’Antoni still manages to leave an unmistakable imprint on the car chase canon.

10. Death Proof (2007)

If you ask Quentin Tarantino, Death Proof, his knowingly trashy tribute to exploitation cinema, is the worst movie he’s ever made. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot to admire about the film, which honors the unsung heroes of Hollywood: stunt performers. The first half of Death Proof follows three female friends who cross paths with Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell), a misogynistic serial killer who takes them out in his “death-proof” Chevy Nova. Fourteen months later, a group that includes stuntwoman Zoë Bell, playing herself, also lands on Mike’s radar. As Bell and her friends test out a ’70s Challenger, she performs a “ship’s mast” stunt, clinging onto the hood of the car with fastening belts. Unfortunately, when Mike pursues the women, it puts Bell in a precarious situation. Most of the entries on this list celebrate some next-level driving skills, but Death Proof’s inclusion is all about Bell pulling off one of the wildest stunts you’ll ever see. She’s quite literally hanging on for dear life:
If the Academy handed out Oscars to stunt performers—and let’s hope it does happen one day—Bell would’ve won in a landslide.

9. To Live and Die in L.A. (1985)

William Friedkin was already responsible for an all-time great car chase in The French Connection (more on that later), but the filmmaker made a commendable bid to outdo himself with To Live and Die in L.A. In this neo-noir thriller, Secret Service agent Richard Chance (William L. Petersen) is hell-bent on arresting an expert counterfeiter, Rick Masters (Willem Dafoe), who kills Chance’s partner days before his retirement. To capture Masters, Chance and his new partner, John Vukovich (John Pankow), attempt to steal $50,000 from a jewelry buyer for an undercover operation. The sting goes bad when the buyer, who is later revealed to be an undercover FBI agent, is killed and a group of gunmen goes after Chance and Vukovich. It’s a clever inversion of the usual car chase formula—this time, it’s the lawmen running away from the criminals. The outside-the-box thinking extends to the film’s most astonishing stretch, in which Chance evades the gunmen by driving into oncoming traffic:
The fact that Friedkin shot the chase at the end of filming—in case anything disastrous happened to the actors—underscores just how risky the endeavor was. The pulse-pounding results speak for themselves.

8. The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

The Matrix sequels have never been held in high esteem, but I’m ready to live my truth: The Matrix Reloaded fucking rules. (If anyone’s got a problem with this take, file your complaints with the Architect.) What’s more, the film happens to boast the finest action set piece of the franchise: the highway chase. After Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) and Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) free the Keymaker (Randall Duk Kim), a program capable of creating shortcuts within the Matrix, they’re pursued by the Twins (Neil and Adrian Rayment). Morpheus once warned that going on the freeway was “suicide,” and it doesn’t take long to see why: The chase draws the attention of several Agents, who repeatedly take over the bodies of other drivers on the road. The scene is the best of both worlds: There’s some incredible stuntwork on display, including when Moss weaves around on a Ducati, and CGI augments some feats of superhuman strength. But the most jaw-dropping aspect of the sequence is how it came together, as the production spent $2.5 million to construct its own highway (!) on California’s Alameda Island. If that weren’t unique enough, I’m pretty sure Reloaded is also the only movie in existence in which a katana takes out an SUV:
The Matrix remains the Wachowskis’ masterpiece, but don’t get it twisted: The filmmakers were still cooking with gas in the sequel.

7. Gone in 60 Seconds (1974)

Size isn’t everything, but for H. B. Halicki, who produced, wrote, directed, and starred in Gone in 60 Seconds, it’s certainly part of the package. The indie action flick follows Maindrian Pace (Halicki), a Los Angeles insurance investigator who has a lucrative side hustle jacking high-end cars. The plot kicks into motion when a South American drug lord enlists Pace to nab 48 cars within five days in exchange for $400,000. Of course, Gone in 60 Seconds is best known for what happens after Pace is caught stealing a 1973 Ford Mustang Mach 1, when he leads police on a chase that lasts a whopping 40 minutes. (More than 90 cars were destroyed in the process.) Halicki, for his part, did all the driving himself, including a spectacular jump off a makeshift ramp of crashed cars:
While Halicki wound up making a few more indies after Gone in 60 Seconds, he died in an accident on the set of its sequel. His legacy as a do-it-all daredevil, however, lives on.

6. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

Long before James Cameron immersed himself in the world of Pandora, he was a pioneer of state-of-the-art visual effects. Case in point: Terminator 2: Judgment Day is credited for having the first CGI character in a blockbuster, the T-1000 (Robert Patrick), a killing machine composed of a futuristic liquid metal. But Cameron also understood that the CGI of that era shouldn’t be the main attraction: It worked best as a complement to the practical effects, as seen in Judgment Day’s epic viaduct chase. When the T-1000 tracks down a young John Connor (Edward Furlong) in a shopping mall, he’s saved at the last minute by the Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger), giving John a chance to escape on his dirt bike. As the T-1000 gives chase, the David and Goliath vibes between man and machine are further epitomized by the T-1000’s commandeering of a truck. The sequence already has a terrifying sense of urgency, but it hits another level when the T-1000 crashes through the viaduct like the Kool-Aid Man:
Big Jim is still revolutionizing what can be achieved with visual effects in the Avatar franchise, and while I cherish those movies, nothing beats his old-school showmanship.

5. Duel (1971)

The feature-length debut of Steven Spielberg—perhaps you’ve heard of him—the TV movie Duel is essentially one extended chase sequence between salesman David Mann (Dennis Weaver) and a sinister trucker determined to drive him off the road. I’ve attached a clip from the ending of the film, but that doesn’t do Duel justice. What cements this movie’s greatness is how it sustains an unbearable level of tension across its 90-minute running time—with a budget under $500,000, no less. Spielberg’s masterstroke is never once showing us the other driver, anthropomorphizing the truck itself as a monster. (You can see a lot of similarities with how he would build suspense in Jaws.) When Mann finally gets the upper hand, tricking his adversary into driving off a cliff, it feels like you can breathe again:
Spielberg would move on to bigger and better things after Duel, but considering how much the director accomplished with so little, you can’t help but wonder what else he could conjure up with limited resources.

4. Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Like Duel, Fury Road is basically one long car chase—the difference is Miller got to work with a blockbuster budget, and made every cent of it count. It’s hard to pick a single standout sequence in Fury Road, but if I had to choose, I’d go with the first attack on the War Rig after Furiosa (Charlize Theron) flees with the wives of Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne). Here’s why: Think back to when you saw Fury Road for the first time, before you fully grasped the vehicular carnage that was in store. And then stuff like this kept happening:
To quote Steven Soderbergh’s thoughts on Fury Road: “I don’t understand how they’re not still shooting that film and I don’t understand how hundreds of people aren’t dead.” Whether or not Miller manages to one-up the action in Furiosa, the director is already in the pantheon.

3. The French Connection (1971)

We return to the Friedkin-verse for what may be his best film, The French Connection, the crime thriller based on Robin Moore’s 1969 nonfiction book of the same name. The story concerns two NYPD detectives, Jimmy “Popeye” Doyle (Gene Hackman) and Buddy “Cloudy” Russo (Roy Scheider), and their tireless pursuit of a French heroin smuggler. But while there’s plenty to admire about how The French Connection illustrates the thin line between police and criminals, its greatest claim to fame is its car chase. After Popeye narrowly survives a sniper attack, he goes after the shooter, who escapes on an elevated train. The ensuing sequence is true daredevil filmmaking that Friedkin shot without permits, leading to real crashes with New Yorkers that made the final cut. But Friedkin’s finest touch was mounting a camera to the front of the car, making the audience feel like they’re part of the action:
My Ringer colleague Justin Sayles believes The French Connection’s chase should’ve landed at no. 1, and I’m sure many folks will agree with him. Being the only film on this list to win Best Picture, however, is a solid consolation prize.

2. Bullitt (1968)

When it comes to modern car chases, all roads lead back to Bullitt. A Dad Cinema classic, the film stars Steve McQueen as Frank Bullitt, a San Francisco detective who pursues a group of mobsters after a key witness is killed in protective custody. In his search for answers, Bullitt realizes he’s being tailed by a couple of hitmen, and then turns the tables on them. From there, the chase is on. Aside from McQueen doing most of his own stunts behind the wheel of a Ford Mustang GT 390 Fastback, what’s so impressive about the sequence is how timeless it is. Even the little imperfections, like hubcaps repeatedly coming off the wheels, work to the film’s advantage, stressing just how much these drivers are living on a razor’s edge. It’s been more than 50 years since Bullitt revolutionized the car chase, and yet few movies since have felt like they’re pushing the envelope to such an exhilarating degree:
That the car driven by McQueen was recently sold at auction for $3.74 million, a then-record price for a Mustang, underlines Bullitt’s enduring legacy.

1. Ronin (1998)

“If I’m going to do a car chase,” filmmaker John Frankenheimer said in an interview with the American Society of Cinematographers, “I’m going to do a car chase that’s going to make somebody think about whether or not they want to do another one!” Boy, did he ever. In Frankenheimer’s late-career masterpiece, Ronin, the director actually incorporated several chases, but it’s the climactic sequence that stands alone as the greatest ever filmed. The movie concerns an international group of mercenaries who are hired to steal a mysterious briefcase; a series of double-crosses and double-bluffs ensue. But for the final chase, all you need to know is that Sam (Robert De Niro), a mercenary with ties to the CIA, is in pursuit of Deirdre (Natascha McElhone), an IRA operative in possession of the case. Winding through the streets and tunnels of Paris, what’s most striking is just how fluid it all feels. You’re completely engrossed in the chase’s forward momentum, captured from every conceivable angle; a symphony of controlled chaos. The driving styles even reflect the characters: Deirdre is reckless and impulsive, while Sam remains calm and controlled.
There are many worthy car chases in this ranking, but in my view, Ronin takes pole position. And while I can’t imagine a movie ever topping what Frankenheimer achieved, I’d love nothing more than to be proved wrong.

I’m not speaking of moral evil; I believe it’s always wrong to desire that another commit some sin.
However, with regard to material evil (or is it called natural evil? I cannot remember), when may one wish that it occur?
Here’s a few scenarios.
Two people are held captive, and the captor says that he will execute one of them. If one captive desires that, as long as one of them must die, that the other person is killed instead of himself, is he guilty of sin?
Say that for some reason, there‘s a highly contagious, deadly disease which a singular person is infected with in the whole world. The experts affirm that it’s morally certain that unless this person dies of the disease, it will CERTAINLY escape and lead to millions of deaths. Is it wrong to desire that the person dies, so as to prevent the deaths of millions?
Say there’s a test which you must do well on to pass the class. The thing is, the test is curved. Is it a sin to desire that others perform poorly on the test, in order that you receive a higher score?
Thank you for your thoughts! If you would, could someone please provide quotes from moral theologians in these regards? Thank you again. God bless!

My dad is a pastor, and my mom is a seminarian who ran a Christian youth center. Needless to say I was raised in an extremely religious environment, and was basically indoctrinated into Christianity. I hate to say that but it really is the truth. From as young as I can remember religious "education" was constant. At 38 years old I am still processing the trauma of being taught and earnestly believing that I (like everyone else) am so inherently evil that my sins had a hand in crucifying Christ, and that I deserve (like everyone else) to burn in eternal hellfire save for the miraculous grace of God should I follow the right religious pathway, and that most of humanity will end up in said hellfire.
But the thing is: my parents really are decent people. They're just victims of toxic religion too, they just can't see it. But any time I try to share doubts about Christianity I am hit with well intentioned but thoughtless responses such as "But the Bible says you have to believe!" (This is an exact quote from my mom). I have raised academic points such as textual criticisms of the New Testament, including Bart Ehrman's work, to which the response is "Oh we have some books at the church that will show he's wrong" without even considering that their religious views could be less than the absolute gospel truth. My parents lack critical thinking skills - or at least a willingness to use them - in this area, but they really aren't bad people. And I know that their worry about the fate of my soul comes from a good place.
But the problem is, my kids are 3 and 6 and my parents are now worrying about the fact that we don't go to church, and aren't super religious and it's starting to become a problem. They don't really know that I'm truly deconstructing, they just think I have "doubts" that I need to "get past" and then I can "get my family back into church where they belong." My mom is looking for excuses to try and bring my kids to their church on Sundays, often as an offer of babysitting but it's really about "your kids need to be in church".
I am no atheist, and I definitely believe in a spiritual reality. But I think it's much broader than what I was taught, including that evidence from near-death accounts, mediumship, and deep hypnosis in my view points to a broader spiritual reality.
I obviously don't want to teach my kids something that I don't think is true, nor do I want to indoctrinate them. I certainly don't want them to believe themselves to be inherently evil, or "fallen!" If anything I want them to explore different ideas themselves, and examine the evidence themselves.
My parents are involved in my kids lives and I want that - they really are good grandparents. But now that my oldest is approaching the age where he "should" get baptized soon, according to their church, I worry about how to navigate this. I'm probably just a few years away from hearing things such as "[your oldest son] will go to hell if he dies today without being saved/being baptized/"accepting" Jesus etc." They used to hit me with that all the time as a kid: "If you died today do you know for sure you would go to heaven not hell" and it terrified me, which is honestly why I got baptized as a kid, out of pure terror of going to hell. I would rather not put my kids through that...
Anyone have a similar situation? Any suggestions?

Things were done to me, things I wouldn't wish even on my worst enemy (I dont have any but you get the point) Things these Muslim did which I would rather not say here but I definitly realized one thing.
Islam is nothing more then a license to kill people, assault, rape people
It literally says in quran multiple times to kill the non belivers or to release them if they pay zakat and go to the 'right path'
Some very intressting quote from the 'peaceful religion's book'
Surah 47 Verse 7
So when you meet the disbelievers ˹in battle˺, strike ˹their˺ necks
Surah 4 Verse 89
They wish you would disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so you may all be alike. So do not take them as allies unless they emigrate in the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take any of them as allies or helpers,
Surah 5 Verse 33
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land is death, crucifixion, cutting off their hands and feet on opposite sides, or exile from the land.

These are just some of alot of such disgusting & brutal quotes from a ' peaceful religious book', this Religion is nothing more then a joke, filled with lies to just kill & torture people who raise questions and instead of answering their question, they get their necks choppd of
necks being choppd off reminded me of my older posts and how I got some Muslim boys angry that literally gave me death threats... These people just use Islam to kill, let it be animals at eid ul adha or humans that dont share the same believes as them, Islam is just a reason to kill & hurt others.
Nothing but Terrorists

(Only Europe, Please) - short note - If you're not into reading or receiving long messages,don't read any further + Please If you don't want to read everything because of my post being too long for you & instead of reading It all - ..skip some parts - find another person to talk to.Let's respect each other and our free time. All people criticizing/making fun of me & other people - will be blocked.Pretty much as people questioning my post and giving me unsolicited advice.I'm not here for any conflicts and I know I can't please everyone - I know I never will.. However It's me who should feel comfortable in my new potential friendship & obviously someone who wants to be my friend - not the whole world.. which is why I don't need any advice from people who don't even want to be a part of my life. The amount of rude people on Reddit always criticizing others and making fun of them is unbelievably high but let me tell you something - NEVER let anyone make choices for you and criticize you only because you're different! Always fight for your dreams and never let anyone make you think you're worthless! It's your life and you're the one deciding what's best for you - If you want to judge me despite not even wanting to talk to me or give me advice better block me! I'm an adult woman and I make all decisions on my own.I'm not trying to "fit in" and be like everyone else - just to get more attention.Accept me for who I am or let go - is my motto.
★
🤍
Hello guys! 🙂 (read everything before you decide to send me a message) Please send me a message ONLY If you're in the same situation and If your expectations are the same as mine.I want to find like minded people from Europe (Why Europe? Read my post to find out) I'm looking for something permanent (remember - you can feel lonely even If you're surrounded by others - If there's no emotional bond) I'm fed up of meeting people who never make time for me & only text me once or twice a week to ask me "what are you up to?" Out of boredom.I don't want to meet people asking others a million of questions like "what's your favorite movie?" Just to give them one word answer and ask them another question "and music? Your favorite song?" I'm looking for something "deeper" & different 🙂
★
🤍
What kind of friend would I like to find? Someone to talk to on a daily basis - Someone who needs It & wants It just as much as me
🤍
What are my expectations? I would like to meet someone in a similar situation – why? Because I honestly feel like only a person with the same expectations and a similar outlook on life would get along with me & because I feel more comfortable talking to people like me..Friendless people who need a strong bond - people without friends and partners.. Don't get me wrong…Most people deserve to be happy and It's good to have friends but people who have friends or families in real life are usually more focused on them (which is completely understandable) & have less time for others + I simply don't want to be replaced by anyone..I kind of envy people who can call others , true friends given I don't have an emotional bond with any of my acquaintances. Please send me a message only If you're not In a relationship and don't have friends for the same reasons I've already mentioned before
★
🤍
Whenever I hear that others have friends I simply get sad because (believe it or not) If I had to choose between 20 people to talk to (acquaintances) and one special person - I'd choose that one special person without any hesitation .
★
🤍
I also want to talk to others every day because..I want to see someone’s effort & be someone's first choice - not another person to have random conversations with..some people ask me "Why do you want to talk to people from Europe?" Well..Because I would like to see someone I'd get along with - In the far future - face to face :) + I don't want to wait any longer than 6 hours to receive a message - waiting 6 hours to receive a message is more than enough
★
🤍
I'm by no means criticizing people who don't want to talk to others often / People who really are super busy & People who want to find someone to have unimportant conversations with - I'm aware that not everyone has the same expectations which is why everything you're reading now - is here for a reason :) All I'm suggesting is - I don't want anything temporary and I don't want to be the one always giving more than receiving.Listen people - I used to ignore being..ignored by others..always being just an option to talk to during tough times or moments of boredom.I was too young to realize that I was never important enough for most people that were a part of my life. I don't know who needs to hear this but..No one is too busy to make time for you! People make excuses to avoid others because they prioritize everything and (maybe) everyone..over them. It's true that most people are busy - but It takes only a few seconds to start a conversation (If you're into short messages) and a few minutes (1-10/15) to type a long message . Don't let anyone lie to you.
★
🤍
Truth is that most people either don't like you enough to make time for you or just simply - feel no need to talk to others often but are they too busy? No..You don't need to send me a message just to ask me and tell me "Do you really want to talk every day? I like long messages but I can't promise to contact you often" If you really are unsure please don't send me a message.I don't need more acquaintances aka people to talk to - occasionally.
🤍
I'm not trying to sound rude but conversations once or twice a week wouldn't be enough for me and I don't need them... Let me tell you one thing – A true friend would never just give up on you for no reason :) It’s always possible to find someone to have a random conversation with – someone willing to send you one message once or twice a week..but..It’s almost impossible to find people willing to make more time for you.
★
🤍
I’m not asking a busy person to make time for me by changing some plans! Absolutely not! I’m here to find someone who wants to talk daily (throughout the day or maybe even night) of one’s own will.Someone looking for the same kind of connection.Strong friendships are based on mutual support. One of the best things you can do for a friend in need, is just to be there for them when they want to talk.I often see posts from people who always say how friendless they are because they don't feel loved or appreciated by their "friends" remember! A true friend - someone who truly likes you or someone who wants to get to know you - will always find time for you.
★
🤍
I'm not interested in small talk/short messages - I love long and meaningful conversations. It's so easy to find someone who loves abbreviations and questions like "How are you?" How was your day? Or what are you interested in? But so hard/almost impossible to find a person who knows how to keep a conversation going & show others some effort.Building and maintaining friendships takes time and effort.Never allow pursuits or possessions to become bigger priorities than your relations with other people.Close friendships are so important to us because they are so difficult to form + Having friends can help you feel as if you belong to something that brings purpose and connection to your life
🤍
• I do NOT respond to any „Hey,hmu” or „u want to talk?” type of messages (super short messages or messages full of abbreviations – I literally can’t stand abbreviations and acronyms in text messages) ALL messages full of abbreviations will immediately be ignored.I also don't like it when people ignore everything I say in private messages just to focus on a random question or? When they start talking only about themselves and don't ever ask me anything. I love conversations with people referring to everything I say...I want everything I say and do - to be reciprocated
🤍
• No NSFW profiles (checking mental health subreddits NOT included as I'm a huge empath and always try to understand others) - Please! I'm not looking for anyone to flirt with and I'm not looking for a partner either. I always check people's profiles (even comment history) - To avoid guys, trying to get inappropriate pictures from adult women or? flirt with them + I don't want to see you with no clothes on so If you're on Reddit only because you want others to see what's underneath your clothes - I'm not for you! I just simply don't want to see any s e x related activity on your profile If you want to talk to me.
🤍
• If both of us (you and I) are from the same country (I live in a non-English speaking country) - I want to communicate with you in our first language! No - Not because I don't understand English - because as you see - I do. Why then? English is simply overrated and people don't appreciate other languages as much as they should. So.. If we're from the same country and you want to talk only in English (which is quite common on reddit) - Talk to someone else. I just don't want to talk to a person from the same country as mine - in a foreign language as It's just something I don't understand even If all you want is to improve your language skills
🤍
• Please only adult people 18-36 (age range) It doesn't matter to me If you're younger or older than me (as long as you're not underage) So.. don't worry! I just want to have discussions with emotionally mature people :)
🤍
• I don’t respond to messages I don’t find interesting even If they're long - If after receiving and reading your message I don't feel comfortable or think "I wouldn't get along with him/her" I simply do not respond (what I’m suggesting is that I don’t always respond to someone’s first or second message because..sometimes you just know If you’d get along with someone or not- I’d never ignore anyone after days or weeks of daily conversations though) just because I don’t want to do anything forcefully & because I don’t want to lead anyone on. I read all messages but I definitely don't respond to all of them! I want to make it clear because I don't want to be accused of not responding and not reading people's messages! - Some people don't message me back as well and even If It's a bit disappointing I'm ok with that! - as long as there's no emotional bond - Not responding to someone's first or second message Is completely OK! If people think they wouldn't get along with a stranger - is there a reason to start a conversation? I don't think so. I can't stand being ignored after days or weeks of daily conversations and seeing people changing priorities over time.. but that's something different - something I don't want to go through ever again for real. If I'm really interested in someone's message it's impossible to hear from me "I'm too busy" because I know myself and If I had no time for others - I wouldn't be here. I don't want to pretend someone I'm not and always try to find some cheap excuses to avoid others. (unlike most people who don't want to talk to others)
🤍
• Don’t ask me “Can you tell me something about yourself?” If you really want to get to know me - you can ask me questions :) I'm an open book.
🤍
• It would be better If you guys were into emojis - like me - to describe your emotions In text messages. Two emojis - 🙂 and 🙁 are completely enough! I just don't like emotionless conversations.I also don't like it when people say "yeah" or yea"as it sounds dismissively. First impression Is everything to me! I want to see your kindness even in a text message - Emojis are very helpful to express your emotions.I don't want to meet people who say "crying Is a weakness" - It's OK to cry even If you're a guy!
🤍
• I want to talk on reddit first (just to make sure If I'd get along with you) before moving to Discord or some other app
🤍
• I would rather talk to a homebody - not another person who always has something to do as people who are very busy don't even have time for daily conversations
🤍
• If you're another person interested only in "childish conversations" such as "HEYOOO! I'M BORED! Ya like Pizza or cheese? xDDDD 🤣" I'm begging you! Don't send me a message.I'm not a child anymore and such messages don't make me smile or laugh.I'm looking for someone interested In serious discussions - not another person just seeking some entertainment out of boredom . Conversations with sarcastic undertones (even when It comes to some emojis such as 🤣😂) are not for me. Your typing style matters to me! Why? when It comes to online conversations with someone new - It's not always possible to know If someone Is laughing at you.. or with you. Let me tell you something else! Jokes about cancer, disabilities and death are UNACCEPTABLE to me. If you find joy In someone else's misfortune you are not a person I want to know.
🤍
• Time response matters to me a lot! I would never ask anyone to be online all day long and I'm NOT asking any of you for any instant messaging as I'm someone who would rather wait an hour or two to receive a proper response instead of some short and pointless messages but I'm interested only in daily conversations and I don't want to wait any longer than 6 hours to get a message from you.I don't need unbelievably long messages either! Messages as long as the second paragraph of my post - are completely enough. If you like longer messages? you can send me a longer message, but If you want to send me one word or one sentence as a response to my post - don't expect a reaction from me. I don't want to come across as rude - I just don't want to waste your time
🤍
• I'm strongly AGAINST picking on people you don't even want to chat with - and making fun of them! I can't stand people who criticize others publicly or make fun of them! (only because they disagree with someone they don't even know) There's no place In my life for someone using Reddit, to hurt other people
🤍
• I'm not into foul language and I definitely don't want to talk to people who swear a lot...
🤍
• I want to meet assertive people who know what they want and always stand up for their friends
🤍
• I want to meet someone willing to call me In the future, someone spontaneously sending me pictures of animals or food, et cetera. I want more than just text conversations.. 🌻
🤍
Why can’t you see any of my hobbies listed down below? Because what really matters to me is..who you are (If you’re honest, talkative ,understanding, caring and trustworthy – for example) just simply – It matters to me what you’re like! not what you like.Don’t get me wrong – you can tell me what your hobbies are but from my point of view - people's hobbies are important - If you want to find a gaming buddy or If you want to meet someone to hang out with in real life and..go bowling for example.What most people seem to care about are other people's passions – I don’t. I get along with other people despite having completely different hobbies but I absolutely don’t get along with people way different than me (different expectations and outlook on life – way different sense of humor or personality traits – It’s just an example) It doesn't make ANY DIFFERENCE to me If you're a gamer or? Someone interested in photography! It doesn't make any difference - > as long as you're talkative and kind and If you also want to find someone willing to stay in your life..for good - But If you're into small talk and all you want is to...type and receive super short messages or If you're here only because you're bored and don't know what to do + If you're a very sarcastic person - I'm definitely not for you! I don't get along with overly sarcastic people turning everything into a joke. Friendships should be natural – not forced. I wouldn't get along with people who laugh at everything.. In my opinion most people are way too sarcastic.. It's quite sad... Sarcasm can also be another form of passive-aggressive behavior.
★
🤍
People who want to be to friends should feel comfortable and have something in common. No - not necessarily a similar taste in music or movies but something else..Most friendships don't fizzle out because of people not having the same hobbies but..because they just simply have different expectations when It comes to something important.I'm not here out of boredom and trust me - I'm not here to meet as many people as possible.I choose quality over quantity.I highly value myself and my time & Sometimes one person but a person who makes you feel comfortable and understood - is more than enough :) We ALL can choose what kind of people we’d like to talk to and maybe even become really good friends with and I? I don’t want anyone to be disappointed.We all have some expectations after all.I know that people don't have to talk as often as possible in order to become friends but I'm interested only in daily conversations. If you really need someone to talk to due to loneliness and If you have time to talk to me daily (throughout the day and maybe even night) I always make time for others.I'm literally always available.I could even stay up all night long only to talk to someone important to me. I’m ready to commit but only If there’s some chemistry between me and someone else.I don’t do anything forcefully.
★
🤍
If you want to talk to me tell me your story - tell me why you're here, what kind of friend would you like to meet :) Et cetera.Such messages are way more interesting to me than...someone's long list of hobbies. I know! It's unusual on reddit but I don't make friends based on hobbies..I want to meet someone with the same mindset as mine to finally feel understood and get close to someone new. You can share your problems with me - I absolutely don't mind "complaining" as I've been through a lot in my life.What do people usually tell you when you tell them that something's wrong? "Don't complain" or "Life's not over yet - one day you'll be happy" or "There are worse situations than yours" and..obviously "Find a therapist" Life's not a fairytale and sometimes things don't go as planned.Emotions shouldn't be bottled up.I'm sick of people always telling others "everything's gonna be ok" move on " & more..Trust me people - not everyone wants to hear "Just believe in yourself and everything's gonna be ok" Some people take it as reassurance - but others? They would rather hear something different 🙁Imagine being told that things will be okay, only for them to get worse..Do you guys know why telling someone "everything's gonna be ok" Is wrong? Because you can't see the future.
★
🤍
You can't guarantee others that one day they'll finally be happy + when It comes to social interactions - We're responsible only for ourselves - not others & as you guys know people let us down quite often (sometimes even when there's no reason) so instead of telling people how they should move on, forget everything and be happy or asking them to find a therapist - be there for them! Always be willing to listen to them If you really like them or want to get to know them & don't suggest everyone in a tough situation to find a therapist because even the best therapist won't ever replace a true friend + It's quite normal to be disappointed If people always do something to hurt you. Sharing your hardships with other people in a very similar situation or exactly the same one - is VERY helpful If the other person understands you & wants to start all over by just letting it all out! Feeling emotional support instead of always hearing some "positive quotes" or someone saying "Stop complaining let's talk about something else - Is very important! "Everyone needs a shoulder to cry on. I appreciate sensitive people who always try to understand others. If after hearing a sad story all you want to say is "forget the past and move on" you're not for me. It's important to be a good listener and provide emotional support to others
★
🤍
Please - If you're a completely different person than the described type of person I'm looking for (If you love abbreviations,If you don't need a stable friendship, If you're sarcastic and quiet) or If you simply disagree with my post - don't force yourself to send me a message.I want my new potential friendship to be natural which is why I want you to contact me only If your needs are the same - I don't want you to pretend someone you're not - only to please me - Pretending to be someone you're not - is the worst.I want to finally be happy again & find someone "always" wanting to talk - sending me random pictures throughout the day - food pictures or pictures of some animals. What is the most important to me? I want to find people who value online friendships as much as they would value real life ones as there's another human being on the other side
★
🤍
No comments please.Only Private messages and chat requests 🌺
I know It's possible to meet people with exactly the same expectations as mine but It's just not easy because most people are Interested In temporary and entertaining conversations. People like me are just "different" I really want to finally find someone who loves emojis as much as I do.. someone who loves sweet, warm and serious discussions at the same time. Emojis really do - change conversations 😊

(Only Europe, Please) - short note - If you're not into reading or receiving long messages,don't read any further + Please If you don't want to read everything because of my post being too long for you & instead of reading It all - ..skip some parts - find another person to talk to.Let's respect each other and our free time. All people criticizing/making fun of me & other people - will be blocked.Pretty much as people questioning my post and giving me unsolicited advice.I'm not here for any conflicts and I know I can't please everyone - I know I never will.. However It's me who should feel comfortable in my new potential friendship & obviously someone who wants to be my friend - not the whole world.. which is why I don't need any advice from people who don't even want to be a part of my life. The amount of rude people on Reddit always criticizing others and making fun of them is unbelievably high but let me tell you something - NEVER let anyone make choices for you and criticize you only because you're different! Always fight for your dreams and never let anyone make you think you're worthless! It's your life and you're the one deciding what's best for you - If you want to judge me despite not even wanting to talk to me or give me advice better block me! I'm an adult woman and I make all decisions on my own.I'm not trying to "fit in" and be like everyone else - just to get more attention.Accept me for who I am or let go - is my motto.
★
🤍
Hello guys! 🙂 (read everything before you decide to send me a message) Please send me a message ONLY If you're in the same situation and If your expectations are the same as mine.I want to find like minded people from Europe (Why Europe? Read my post to find out) I'm looking for something permanent (remember - you can feel lonely even If you're surrounded by others - If there's no emotional bond) I'm fed up of meeting people who never make time for me & only text me once or twice a week to ask me "what are you up to?" Out of boredom.I don't want to meet people asking others a million of questions like "what's your favorite movie?" Just to give them one word answer and ask them another question "and music? Your favorite song?" I'm looking for something "deeper" & different 🙂
★
🤍
What kind of friend would I like to find? Someone to talk to on a daily basis - Someone who needs It & wants It just as much as me
🤍
What are my expectations? I would like to meet someone in a similar situation – why? Because I honestly feel like only a person with the same expectations and a similar outlook on life would get along with me & because I feel more comfortable talking to people like me..Friendless people who need a strong bond - people without friends and partners.. Don't get me wrong…Most people deserve to be happy and It's good to have friends but people who have friends or families in real life are usually more focused on them (which is completely understandable) & have less time for others + I simply don't want to be replaced by anyone..I kind of envy people who can call others , true friends given I don't have an emotional bond with any of my acquaintances. Please send me a message only If you're not In a relationship and don't have friends for the same reasons I've already mentioned before
★
🤍
Whenever I hear that others have friends I simply get sad because (believe it or not) If I had to choose between 20 people to talk to (acquaintances) and one special person - I'd choose that one special person without any hesitation .
★
🤍
I also want to talk to others every day because..I want to see someone’s effort & be someone's first choice - not another person to have random conversations with..some people ask me "Why do you want to talk to people from Europe?" Well..Because I would like to see someone I'd get along with - In the far future - face to face :) + I don't want to wait any longer than 6 hours to receive a message - waiting 6 hours to receive a message is more than enough
★
🤍
I'm by no means criticizing people who don't want to talk to others often / People who really are super busy & People who want to find someone to have unimportant conversations with - I'm aware that not everyone has the same expectations which is why everything you're reading now - is here for a reason :) All I'm suggesting is - I don't want anything temporary and I don't want to be the one always giving more than receiving.Listen people - I used to ignore being..ignored by others..always being just an option to talk to during tough times or moments of boredom.I was too young to realize that I was never important enough for most people that were a part of my life. I don't know who needs to hear this but..No one is too busy to make time for you! People make excuses to avoid others because they prioritize everything and (maybe) everyone..over them. It's true that most people are busy - but It takes only a few seconds to start a conversation (If you're into short messages) and a few minutes (1-10/15) to type a long message . Don't let anyone lie to you.
★
🤍
Truth is that most people either don't like you enough to make time for you or just simply - feel no need to talk to others often but are they too busy? No..You don't need to send me a message just to ask me and tell me "Do you really want to talk every day? I like long messages but I can't promise to contact you often" If you really are unsure please don't send me a message.I don't need more acquaintances aka people to talk to - occasionally.
🤍
I'm not trying to sound rude but conversations once or twice a week wouldn't be enough for me and I don't need them... Let me tell you one thing – A true friend would never just give up on you for no reason :) It’s always possible to find someone to have a random conversation with – someone willing to send you one message once or twice a week..but..It’s almost impossible to find people willing to make more time for you.
★
🤍
I’m not asking a busy person to make time for me by changing some plans! Absolutely not! I’m here to find someone who wants to talk daily (throughout the day or maybe even night) of one’s own will.Someone looking for the same kind of connection.Strong friendships are based on mutual support. One of the best things you can do for a friend in need, is just to be there for them when they want to talk.I often see posts from people who always say how friendless they are because they don't feel loved or appreciated by their "friends" remember! A true friend - someone who truly likes you or someone who wants to get to know you - will always find time for you.
★
🤍
I'm not interested in small talk/short messages - I love long and meaningful conversations. It's so easy to find someone who loves abbreviations and questions like "How are you?" How was your day? Or what are you interested in? But so hard/almost impossible to find a person who knows how to keep a conversation going & show others some effort.Building and maintaining friendships takes time and effort.Never allow pursuits or possessions to become bigger priorities than your relations with other people.Close friendships are so important to us because they are so difficult to form + Having friends can help you feel as if you belong to something that brings purpose and connection to your life
🤍
• I do NOT respond to any „Hey,hmu” or „u want to talk?” type of messages (super short messages or messages full of abbreviations – I literally can’t stand abbreviations and acronyms in text messages) ALL messages full of abbreviations will immediately be ignored.I also don't like it when people ignore everything I say in private messages just to focus on a random question or? When they start talking only about themselves and don't ever ask me anything. I love conversations with people referring to everything I say...I want everything I say and do - to be reciprocated
🤍
• No NSFW profiles (checking mental health subreddits NOT included as I'm a huge empath and always try to understand others) - Please! I'm not looking for anyone to flirt with and I'm not looking for a partner either. I always check people's profiles (even comment history) - To avoid guys, trying to get inappropriate pictures from adult women or? flirt with them + I don't want to see you with no clothes on so If you're on Reddit only because you want others to see what's underneath your clothes - I'm not for you! I just simply don't want to see any s e x related activity on your profile If you want to talk to me.
🤍
• If both of us (you and I) are from the same country (I live in a non-English speaking country) - I want to communicate with you in our first language! No - Not because I don't understand English - because as you see - I do. Why then? English is simply overrated and people don't appreciate other languages as much as they should. So.. If we're from the same country and you want to talk only in English (which is quite common on reddit) - Talk to someone else. I just don't want to talk to a person from the same country as mine - in a foreign language as It's just something I don't understand even If all you want is to improve your language skills
🤍
• Please only adult people 18-36 (age range) It doesn't matter to me If you're younger or older than me (as long as you're not underage) So.. don't worry! I just want to have discussions with emotionally mature people :)
🤍
• I don’t respond to messages I don’t find interesting even If they're long - If after receiving and reading your message I don't feel comfortable or think "I wouldn't get along with him/her" I simply do not respond (what I’m suggesting is that I don’t always respond to someone’s first or second message because..sometimes you just know If you’d get along with someone or not- I’d never ignore anyone after days or weeks of daily conversations though) just because I don’t want to do anything forcefully & because I don’t want to lead anyone on. I read all messages but I definitely don't respond to all of them! I want to make it clear because I don't want to be accused of not responding and not reading people's messages! - Some people don't message me back as well and even If It's a bit disappointing I'm ok with that! - as long as there's no emotional bond - Not responding to someone's first or second message Is completely OK! If people think they wouldn't get along with a stranger - is there a reason to start a conversation? I don't think so. I can't stand being ignored after days or weeks of daily conversations and seeing people changing priorities over time.. but that's something different - something I don't want to go through ever again for real. If I'm really interested in someone's message it's impossible to hear from me "I'm too busy" because I know myself and If I had no time for others - I wouldn't be here. I don't want to pretend someone I'm not and always try to find some cheap excuses to avoid others. (unlike most people who don't want to talk to others)
🤍
• Don’t ask me “Can you tell me something about yourself?” If you really want to get to know me - you can ask me questions :) I'm an open book.
🤍
• It would be better If you guys were into emojis - like me - to describe your emotions In text messages. Two emojis - 🙂 and 🙁 are completely enough! I just don't like emotionless conversations.I also don't like it when people say "yeah" or yea"as it sounds dismissively. First impression Is everything to me! I want to see your kindness even in a text message - Emojis are very helpful to express your emotions.I don't want to meet people who say "crying Is a weakness" - It's OK to cry even If you're a guy!
🤍
• I want to talk on reddit first (just to make sure If I'd get along with you) before moving to Discord or some other app
🤍
• I would rather talk to a homebody - not another person who always has something to do as people who are very busy don't even have time for daily conversations
🤍
• If you're another person interested only in "childish conversations" such as "HEYOOO! I'M BORED! Ya like Pizza or cheese? xDDDD 🤣" I'm begging you! Don't send me a message.I'm not a child anymore and such messages don't make me smile or laugh.I'm looking for someone interested In serious discussions - not another person just seeking some entertainment out of boredom . Conversations with sarcastic undertones (even when It comes to some emojis such as 🤣😂) are not for me. Your typing style matters to me! Why? when It comes to online conversations with someone new - It's not always possible to know If someone Is laughing at you.. or with you. Let me tell you something else! Jokes about cancer, disabilities and death are UNACCEPTABLE to me. If you find joy In someone else's misfortune you are not a person I want to know.
🤍
• Time response matters to me a lot! I would never ask anyone to be online all day long and I'm NOT asking any of you for any instant messaging as I'm someone who would rather wait an hour or two to receive a proper response instead of some short and pointless messages but I'm interested only in daily conversations and I don't want to wait any longer than 6 hours to get a message from you.I don't need unbelievably long messages either! Messages as long as the second paragraph of my post - are completely enough. If you like longer messages? you can send me a longer message, but If you want to send me one word or one sentence as a response to my post - don't expect a reaction from me. I don't want to come across as rude - I just don't want to waste your time
🤍
• I'm strongly AGAINST picking on people you don't even want to chat with - and making fun of them! I can't stand people who criticize others publicly or make fun of them! (only because they disagree with someone they don't even know) There's no place In my life for someone using Reddit, to hurt other people
🤍
• I'm not into foul language and I definitely don't want to talk to people who swear a lot...
🤍
• I want to meet assertive people who know what they want and always stand up for their friends
🤍
• I want to meet someone willing to call me In the future, someone spontaneously sending me pictures of animals or food, et cetera. I want more than just text conversations.. 🌻
🤍
Why can’t you see any of my hobbies listed down below? Because what really matters to me is..who you are (If you’re honest, talkative ,understanding, caring and trustworthy – for example) just simply – It matters to me what you’re like! not what you like.Don’t get me wrong – you can tell me what your hobbies are but from my point of view - people's hobbies are important - If you want to find a gaming buddy or If you want to meet someone to hang out with in real life and..go bowling for example.What most people seem to care about are other people's passions – I don’t. I get along with other people despite having completely different hobbies but I absolutely don’t get along with people way different than me (different expectations and outlook on life – way different sense of humor or personality traits – It’s just an example) It doesn't make ANY DIFFERENCE to me If you're a gamer or? Someone interested in photography! It doesn't make any difference - > as long as you're talkative and kind and If you also want to find someone willing to stay in your life..for good - But If you're into small talk and all you want is to...type and receive super short messages or If you're here only because you're bored and don't know what to do + If you're a very sarcastic person - I'm definitely not for you! I don't get along with overly sarcastic people turning everything into a joke. Friendships should be natural – not forced. I wouldn't get along with people who laugh at everything.. In my opinion most people are way too sarcastic.. It's quite sad... Sarcasm can also be another form of passive-aggressive behavior.
★
🤍
People who want to be to friends should feel comfortable and have something in common. No - not necessarily a similar taste in music or movies but something else..Most friendships don't fizzle out because of people not having the same hobbies but..because they just simply have different expectations when It comes to something important.I'm not here out of boredom and trust me - I'm not here to meet as many people as possible.I choose quality over quantity.I highly value myself and my time & Sometimes one person but a person who makes you feel comfortable and understood - is more than enough :) We ALL can choose what kind of people we’d like to talk to and maybe even become really good friends with and I? I don’t want anyone to be disappointed.We all have some expectations after all.I know that people don't have to talk as often as possible in order to become friends but I'm interested only in daily conversations. If you really need someone to talk to due to loneliness and If you have time to talk to me daily (throughout the day and maybe even night) I always make time for others.I'm literally always available.I could even stay up all night long only to talk to someone important to me. I’m ready to commit but only If there’s some chemistry between me and someone else.I don’t do anything forcefully.
★
🤍
If you want to talk to me tell me your story - tell me why you're here, what kind of friend would you like to meet :) Et cetera.Such messages are way more interesting to me than...someone's long list of hobbies. I know! It's unusual on reddit but I don't make friends based on hobbies..I want to meet someone with the same mindset as mine to finally feel understood and get close to someone new. You can share your problems with me - I absolutely don't mind "complaining" as I've been through a lot in my life.What do people usually tell you when you tell them that something's wrong? "Don't complain" or "Life's not over yet - one day you'll be happy" or "There are worse situations than yours" and..obviously "Find a therapist" Life's not a fairytale and sometimes things don't go as planned.Emotions shouldn't be bottled up.I'm sick of people always telling others "everything's gonna be ok" move on " & more..Trust me people - not everyone wants to hear "Just believe in yourself and everything's gonna be ok" Some people take it as reassurance - but others? They would rather hear something different 🙁Imagine being told that things will be okay, only for them to get worse..Do you guys know why telling someone "everything's gonna be ok" Is wrong? Because you can't see the future.
★
🤍
You can't guarantee others that one day they'll finally be happy + when It comes to social interactions - We're responsible only for ourselves - not others & as you guys know people let us down quite often (sometimes even when there's no reason) so instead of telling people how they should move on, forget everything and be happy or asking them to find a therapist - be there for them! Always be willing to listen to them If you really like them or want to get to know them & don't suggest everyone in a tough situation to find a therapist because even the best therapist won't ever replace a true friend + It's quite normal to be disappointed If people always do something to hurt you. Sharing your hardships with other people in a very similar situation or exactly the same one - is VERY helpful If the other person understands you & wants to start all over by just letting it all out! Feeling emotional support instead of always hearing some "positive quotes" or someone saying "Stop complaining let's talk about something else - Is very important! "Everyone needs a shoulder to cry on. I appreciate sensitive people who always try to understand others. If after hearing a sad story all you want to say is "forget the past and move on" you're not for me. It's important to be a good listener and provide emotional support to others
★
🤍
Please - If you're a completely different person than the described type of person I'm looking for (If you love abbreviations,If you don't need a stable friendship, If you're sarcastic and quiet) or If you simply disagree with my post - don't force yourself to send me a message.I want my new potential friendship to be natural which is why I want you to contact me only If your needs are the same - I don't want you to pretend someone you're not - only to please me - Pretending to be someone you're not - is the worst.I want to finally be happy again & find someone "always" wanting to talk - sending me random pictures throughout the day - food pictures or pictures of some animals. What is the most important to me? I want to find people who value online friendships as much as they would value real life ones as there's another human being on the other side
★
🤍
No comments please.Only Private messages and chat requests 🌺
I know It's possible to meet people with exactly the same expectations as mine but It's just not easy because most people are Interested In temporary and entertaining conversations. People like me are just "different" I really want to finally find someone who loves emojis as much as I do.. someone who loves sweet, warm and serious discussions at the same time. Emojis really do - change conversations 😊

Well here we are, FG, our first decades tournament, the 2010’s. Thank you to everyone who nominated movies, and let’s get right into it!
Results of Round 1

• Spider-Man Into the Spider-Verse (2018) (9) beat 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) (8) and Sorry to Bother You (2018) (6)
• Snowpiercer (2013) (11) beat 12 Years a Slave (2013) (7), and Spotlight (2015) (6)
• Skyfall (2012) (9) beat 127 Hours (2010) (8) and Spring Breakers (2012) (7)
• First Reformed (2017) (10) beat Skate Kitchen (2018) (3), and Steve Jobs (2015) (3)
• 1917 (2019) (9) beat Sing Street (2016) (6), and Stoker (2013) (6)
• Silence (2016) (14) beat 20th Century Women (2016) (4) and Stray Dogs (2013) (3)
• Sicario (2015) (17) beat Sunset (2017) (3) and 50/50 (2011) (3)
• Shutter Island (2010) (11) beat A Field in England (2013) (5), and Tabu (2012) (2)
• A Ghost Story (2017) (13) beat Short Term 12 (2013) (6), and Tehran Taboo (2017) (1)
• A Separation (2011) (7) tied with Shoplifters (2018) (7), and beat The Act of Killing (2012) (3)
• The American (2010) (8) beat A Silent Voice (2016) (2), and Shin Godzilla (2016) (2)
• The Assassin (2015) (11) beat Shame (2011) (7), and A Star is Born (2018) (5)
• Scott Pilgrim vs the World (2010) (11) beat Ad Astra (2019) (6), and The Avengers (2012) (4)
• The Babadook (2014) (10) beat All is Lost (2013) (7) and Rubber (2010) (4)
• Annihilation (2018) (15) beat Room (2015) (5), and The Babysitter (2017) (2)
• Roma (2018) (12) beat April and the Extraordinary World (2015) (4), and The Conjuring (2013) (3)
• The Big Short (2015) (7) beat Aquarius (2016) (5), and Right Now, Wrong Then (2015) (0)
• Arrival (2016) (16) beat Raw (2016) (3), and The Big Sick (2017) (1)
• Atomic Blonde (2017) (6) beat Rango (2011) (5) and The Captain (2017) (3)
  
• The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018) (8) beat Post Tenebras Lux (2012) (3), and Bait (2019) (1)
  
• Portrait of a Lady on Fire (2019) (10) beat Barbara (2012) (1), and The Counselor (2013) (1)
  
• The Death of Stalin (2017) (8) beat Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping (2016) (6), and Beasts of No Nation (2015) (3)
  
• Birdman (2014) (7) tied Phoenix (2014) (7) and beat The Double (2013) (2)
  
• Black Swan (2010) (11) beat Phantom Thread (2017) (8), and The Drop (2014) (3)
  
• Blade Runner 2049 (2017) (11) beat The Florida Project (2017) (9), and The House That Jack Built (2018) (2)
  
• The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) (15) beat Blindspotting (2018) (2), and Paddington 2 (2017) (1)
  
• Blue is the Warmest Color (2013) (7) beat Only Lovers Left Alive (2013) (6), and The Great Beauty (2013) (2)
  
• The Handmaiden (2016) (11) beat Bone Tomahawk (2015) (7), and Only God Forgives (2013) (4)
  
• Once Upon a Time....In Hollywood (2019) (15) beat The Hateful Eight (2015) (8), and Bridge of Spies (2015) (4)
  
• Boyhood (2014) (7) beat Once Upon a Time in Anatolia (2011) (5), and The Hollars (2016) (2)
  
• O.J. Made in America (2016) (10) beat Parasite (2019) (9), and Brooklyn (2015) (5)
  
• Nightcrawler (2014) (12) beat Burning (2018) (7), and The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) (1)
  
• Nebraska (2013) (7) beat The Hunt (2012) (4), and Byzantium (2012) (4)
  
• Mysteries of Lisbon (2010) (4) beat Carlos (2010) (3), and The Imposter (2012) (2)
  
• Carol (2015) (12) beat The Irishman (2019) (6), and mother! (2017) (3)
  
• The Lighthouse (2019) (9) beat Moonrise Kingdom (2012) (8), and Cemetery of Splendour (2015) (4)
  
• Moonlight (2016) (9) beat The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017) (5), and Chappie (2015) (3)
  
• Molly’s Game (2017) (8) beat Coherence (2013) (7), and Cloud Atlas (2012) (4)
  
• The Master (2012) (11) beat Mission Impossible: Fallout (2018) (6), and The Martian (2015) (5)
  
• Cold War (2018) (5) ties Meek's Cutoff (2010) (5), and beats The Missing Picture (2013) (2)
  
• The Nice Guys (2016) (14) beat Contagion (2011) (5), and Mary Poppins Returns (2018) (2)
  
• Margaret (2011) (9) beat The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (6), and Creed (2015) (2)
  
• Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) (8) tied with The Raid 2 (2014) (8), and beat Maps to the Stars (2014) (3)
  
• Drive (2011) (17) beat The Revenant (2015) (6), and Mandy (2018) (4)
  
• Django Unchained (2012) (11) beat The Salesman (2016) (3) and Made in Dagenham (2010) (2)
  
• Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) (9) beat Train to Busan (2016) (5), and Diamantino (2018) (1)
  
• Eighth Grade (2018) (5) beat Elle (2016) (4), and Long Way North (2015) (2)
  
• The Turin Horse (2011) (10) beat Logan (2017) (9), and El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie (2019) (0)
  
• The Way Back (2010) (8) beat Locke (2013) (5), and The Tree of Life (2011) (4)
  
• Embrace of the Serpent (2015) (10) beat Little Women (2019) (6), and The Whispering Star (2015) (2)
  
• Enemy (2013) (6) tied with The Wind Rises (2013) (6) and beat Like Someone in Love (2012) (3)
  
• Life of Pi (2012) (9) beat The Witch (2015) (8), and Evangelion 3.0 You Can (Not) Redo (2012) (1)
  
• The Wolf of Wall Street (2013) (7) beat Leave No Trace (2018) (6) and Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010) (3)
  
• Ex Machina (2014) (9) beat Thoroughbreds (2017) (4), and Le Havre (2011) (3)
  
• Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017) (13) beat Ladybird (2017) (9), and Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019)
  
• La La Land (2016) (13) beat 13 Assassins (2010) (4), and White Boy Rick (2018) (1)
  
• The Social Network (2010) (11) Four Lions (2010) (5), and Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011) (2)
  
• Get Out (2017) (7) beat Two Days, One Night (2014) (5), and Konosuba Legend of Crimson (2019) (1)
  
• Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives (2010) (7) beat Girlhood (2014) (4), and Klaus (2019) (1)
  
• Under the Skin (2013) (13) beat Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014) (3), and God Bless America (2011) (2)
  
• Upstream Color (2013) (8) beat Killer Joe (2011) (7), and I Saw The Devil (2010) (4)
  
• Good Time (2017) (11) beat Joker (2019) (6), and Us (2019) (2)
  

View Poll

“The past and the future, considered apart from the consequences of their content, are empty as a dream, and the present is only the indivisible and unenduring boundary between them.” ― Arthur Schopenhauer, The World As Will And Representation

In Chapter 3, it's revealed by the medical records disk that Isa's name is shorthand for "Isolde." I wasn't familiar with this name, but I felt it was distinctive enough that there had to be some meaning behind it, so I did some digging.
One use of the name "Isolde" that caught my attention was that it is the name of a facility at CERN- the ISOLDE or Isotope Separator On Line DEvice, used to produce and separate radioactive isotopes of elements for research purposes. Given the game's frequent use of motifs relating to nuclear science and the health risks of radiation, it felt too specific to be incidental. Still, there wasn't much meaning I could derive from it, but I thought it was interesting enough to be worth pointing out.
The most prominent instance of that name is from the story of Tristan and Isolde, a celtic legend and a romantic tragedy often described as a precursor to Romeo and Juliet. There are many versions of the story told across different times and cultures, but given the game's many references to Romantic Era art from the German speaking world such as Schubert's Serenade and Böcklin's Isle of the Dead, I'm inclined to think it's specifically referencing Richard Wagner's opera "Tristan and Isolde". I'll give a quick synopsis here and analyze the parallels that I think may reflect Isa's role in the story. (To avoid confusion, from now on I will only use 'Isolde' to refer to the character from Tristan and Isolde while 'Isa' will refer to the one from Signalis, unless otherwise stated.)
It begins with Isolde on a ship, being escorted by the knight Tristan, from Ireland to Cornwall to marry Tristan's uncle, King Mark of Cornwall. It is an arranged marriage she is not keen on going through. In a fit of rage, she curses the ship, hoping it sinks and takes all of them with it, particularly Tristan. After learning that Tristan killed her original fiancé, she issues him an ultimatum that she will not willingly leave with him until he drinks with her as an atonement. In truth, she is planning to poison the both of them, and he suspects as much, but in an attempt to prevent this, her attendant replaced the poison with a love potion.
Though she ends up marrying King Mark between the first and second act, Tristan and Isolde can't ignore their passionate love. They realize the only time they can safely pursue their relationship is at night, when the King and the court aren't watching. As their patience for the night grows thinner, they realize the only way to realize their love is through the eternal night: Death. But at the same time, they are caught together by the King and his attendant. Without even attempting to explain his betrayal, he asks Isolde to follow him into death and impales himself on a sword.
In the third act, Tristan partially recovers from the suicide attempt but remains delirious. At the sound of a shepard's pipe in the distance, he reflects on the death of his parents, believing the pipe to be death now calling to him. He laments drinking the potion and how it led him to live a life of madness desiring something that can never be. He dies in Isolde's arms and she follows him into death. As the King arrives to the scene, Tristan's servant kills the King's attendant in revenge and then himself. Amidst all the death, the king reveals he had learned about the love potion and had simply come to offer his blessing to Tristan and Isolde, and the story ends with them finally realizing their love in the afterlife.
In writing this adaptation of the classic story, Wagner was reportedly inspired by the work of Arthur Schopenhauer, particularly his work "Die Welt ais Wille und Vorstellung" or "The World as Will and Representation." In "The Tristan Chord: Wagner and Philosophy", author Bryan Magee identifies Wagner's use of day and night as respective metaphors for "phenomenon", the aspects of the world we can perceive and "noumenon", the fundamentally unknowable reality beneath it. Both concepts were first named by Immanuel Kant, but Schopenhauer further argued that the gap between them is the cause of misery and suffering for all sentient beings; our individual pursuits and efforts to move towards a more personally favorable 'phenomenon' cannot be reconciled with a fundamentally uncertain state of the world and its other inhabitants. That to fulfill one desire requires the quashing of ten others. Illustrating this, he writes:

"...he saw an immense field entirely covered with skeletons, and took it to be a battle-field. However, they were nothing but skeletons of large turtles five feet long, three feet broad, and of equal height. These turtles come this way from the sea in order to lay their eggs, and are then seized by wild dogs... with their united strength, these dogs lay them on their backs, tear open their lower armour, the small scales of the belly, and devour them alive. But then a tiger often pounces on the dogs. Now all this misery is repeated thousands and thousands of times, year in year out. For this, then, are these turtles born. For what offence must they suffer this agony? What is the point of this whole scene of horror? The only answer is that the will-to-live thus objectifies itself."

Returning to Signalis, this quote immediately calls to mind the first-person Shores of Oblivion scene, in which skulls are buried and littered across the sand, and a quote from one of the nearby scattered papers:

we should have never left
the primordial soup
only through death can i escape
the call of the one who rules
above all life

Tristan and Isolde, realizing that their personal passions were irreconcilable with the interests of the material world they were in, concluded the only answer was to leave it behind altogether, so they made a death pact. A "promise", if you will. So upon finding Tristan dead, Isolde takes her own life. Much like how our Isa, who upon losing hope of being able to find Erika in the living world, disintegrates.
Another related theme connecting these stories is the lamentation of fate. Just as Isolde prays for the ship carrying her to her destiny to sink with her on it, and as Tristan regrets drinking the potion that led him to a life of desire for something that could never be, two early game quotes from Isa show that she is seeking Erika not just with love and concern but with regret for how they left things:

"Erika, if you find this note, despite everything that's happened. I've come to look for you."
"Have you ever wondered if you're speaking to someone for the last time without knowing? I wish I could go back, so I could say something else."

The details of this regret are deliberately ambiguous. It sounds like they had a fight or falling out, but 'everything that's happened' implies a deeper conflict- a disagreement or choice that they couldn't reconcile. Something important enough that it took Isa away from her sister, yet also something she regrets so greatly that she would take it all back just so she can see her sister one more time.
As Schopenhauer said, "A man can do what he wants, but not want what he wants." The great tragedy at the center of Tristan and Isolde is that even if we have control of our actions, we are at the mercy of the desires we were given by fate. It's a theme that permeates not just Isa's story, but Signalis as a whole.
Elster never chose to love Ariane. Had she not, she might have found the strength to end her suffering before it was too late. So she ran away from the "day" of Ariane's suffering into the "night" of keeping her in cryosleep.
Ariane never chose to love art. Had she not, she could have had a simple and comfortable life fitting in with her peers. So she ran away from the "day" of the Eusan Nation's surveillance and social ridicule into the "night" of Penrose-512.
Falke lost any hope of finding happiness after becoming burdened with emotions and identity that she could do nothing to satiate, and quite literally went from the "day" of life into the "night" of dreaming.
And then there's Adler, all but crushed by helplessness as he tries in vain to hold back the death of reality, as Elster and Isa continue to bring about its apparent decay in pursuit of their own wills. The relationship between Adler and Isa is interesting and I think quite important, as he's the only character besides Elster who gets direct screen time with her. As the game bluntly mentions the first time Adler meets Isa,

NONE OF US ARE HERE BY CHOICE (And No One Will Miss Us)

It's from this and the Schopenhauerian interpretation of Tristan and Isolde that I think Adler represents phenomenon while Isa represents noumenon.
Adler wishes to preserve the light of day. To awaken from the dream and return to shared experience of a common, coherent reality. One where what you see is what you get. Where experiences can be trusted, and results are predictable.
Isa wishes to live in the night. The world of passion and of choice. Valuing the experience of familial love over all else, even the world or truth, she continues to live only in pursuit of another reality amidst the abyss of uncertainties, one where she made amends with her sister before it was too late, or never fell out with her at all. And when she finally accepts that she cannot find it or manifest it, much like her namesake, she concludes the "eternal night" is her last recourse.
There can be no perfect reconciliation between these two wills. It can never be day and night at the same time. And yet they do find themselves together- falling into the bottom of the mine. In the Nowhere, at the end of all things. At the sunset, the liminal space in between the night and day, between dreaming and waking. Because, one means nothing without the other.
To me that is the important take away from her story. That if we don't want to live in regret over the hand life dealt us- hating ourselves for being unable to fulfill the desires we were stuck with, before its too late, we must confront the question of which world we want to live in.
Is it truly better to have loved and lost then never loved at all? Is it truly better to have tried and failed than to never try? I don't want to believe the answer is no, but none of us can be certain for ourselves until we reason with ourselves honestly about why we struggle with the question in the first place- what the true value of each side of the coin is. Perhaps then we can accept what is beyond our control.
To quote Schopenhauer once more:

Every individual, every human apparition and its course of life, is only one more short dream of the endless spirit of nature, of the persistent will-to-live, is only one more fleeting form, playfully sketched by it on its infinite page, space and time; it is allowed to exist for a short while that is infinitesimal compared with these, and is then effaced, to make new room. Yet, and here is to be found the serious side of life, each of these fleeting forms, these empty fancies, must be paid for by the whole will-to-live in all its intensity with many deep sorrows, and finally with a bitter death, long feared and finally made manifest. It is for this reason that the sight of a corpse suddenly makes us serious.

I’ll preface off the bat by saying I don’t think he is a good person I just feel like claims he is a monster are heavily overstated. Secondly I’m not a communist, socialist, etc so that doesn’t really play any part in my defending him.
I see pretty much the same talking points spread about that he sent homosexuals to concentration camps, is racist, and committed genocide all of which are verifiably misrepresentations or outright lies. To start off the concentration talking point is beyond laughable as he I shit you not left the country entirely months before these concentration camps opened up so any feelings about that have to be taken up with Fidel Castro. That being said these concentration camps while still bad weren’t death camps like the ones nazis used and only sent people who couldn’t hoping the military and as homosexuals weren’t allowed to they were sent there. Fidel went undercover there to see the abuse going on he had heard and put reforms in place to lessen it so while still bad they weren’t nearly the level of evil the word concentration camp draws up in one’s mind.
Che was racist as evident by his own words but his racist quote everyone spreads around was from before he became a revolutionary and realized the error of his ways to the point he literally fought alongside the Africans in the Congo.
The majority of the people Che sent to be executed were members of the Batista regime who had committed war crimes. He executed many people who were likely innocent due to sentencing people without much proof at times but such ruthless is in a way necessary for a revolution and is seen to occur in every prominent revolution from the American to the French to the Haitian. In an ideal world no innocents would have to be killed but holding punches when overthrowing an oppressive government causes revolutions to fail who ch only causes more death and suffering.
Regardless the fact such ruthlessness was used is proof enough he wasn’t a good person but he isn’t a monster by any means. The thing that separates Che from Fidel Castro is that Fidel used talk of helping the people as a ruse to gain power while Che believed in his cause to the extent he spoke out against Castro publicly for becoming dependent on the Soviets as it was no better than doing so to America. He was so genuine in his motives to help the people that after winning the revolution in Cuba he continued fighting in other countries until he was killed. He was flawed but the extent at which people try to portray him as being is little more than blatant propaganda to discredit the fact that he is a symbol for revolutionaries everywhere. I’ve seen a lot of conflicting opinions on the matter and want to hear some reasons for thinking he is a terrible person based on his actual actions and not fabrications

I am not even talking about scriptural problems within the bible, You don't have to open a single bible to start seeing the problems,
1-) The Problem of Salvation and Faith (Why the plan of salvation is ridiculous, and has failed)
I.The ridiculousness of the plan
A. Demanding blood for remission of sins Heb 9:22 - Why is this the terms that god insists upon? Isn't he the architect of the parameters regarding sin, punishment, and forgiveness? Is he not able to forgive sin without blood sacrifice? Can he not say, “No blood sacrifice necessary, I just forgive you?”
B. God sacrificing himself to himself to save us from himself by creating a loophole in the architecture for condemnation he engineered in the first place? This is your solution for a problem in which you yourself are the problem. It’s like a doctor stabbing people to be able to operate and save them.
C. Dying for someone else's crime does not equal justice in any court.
D. The sacrifice was not a sacrifice at all :

1. Jesus is said to be eternal
2. He spent a few days in misery out of his billions of years plus of existence
3. He spent a minutiae of a fraction of his existence suffering knowing he would be resurrected after the ordeal and spend eternity in divine luxury, and that somehow provides him justification to sentence us to trillions of years of eternity suffering without end?
4. Jesus is a supernatural immortal who suffered temporary mortal punishment and then sentences mortals to supernatural eternal punishment if they do not receive his sacrifice.
5. Why is three days of punishment followed by eternity in glory sufficient for all the horrible deeds any man has ever committed, but billions of years suffered in hell by a good moral person who does not believe due to lack of evidence is not sufficient?

2-) Nature of The Christian god
I. He is supposed to be an all Powerful and All mighty being and yet he died on a cross by his own creation (If you see someone claiming to be god and then you saw him hie before your very eyes, How on earth are you supposed to conclude anything else other than "This guy is a liar"?)
Modern Christians would respond to this saying "Only the Human part died, The Divine part wasn't affected"
Which again, doesn't make any sense :
A. Even when assuming a human sacrifice is somehow necessary for salvation, The sacrifice of 1 Human being can never be Enough to atone for the sins of all of mankind since Adam and Eve till the return of jesus.
I found a Coptic pope explaining this issue in detail, Here is a link to his book, https://st-takla.org/books/en/pope-shenouda-iii/nature-of-christ/propitiation-and-redemption.html
Quoting from it : "The belief in the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos is essential, necessary and fundamental for redemption. Redemption requires unlimited propitiation sufficient for the forgiveness of the unlimited sins of all the people through all ages. There was no solution other than the Incarnation of God the Logos to offer this through His Divine Power.
Thus, if we mention two natures and say that the human nature alone performed the act of redemption, it would have been entirely impossible to achieve unlimited propitiation for man's salvation. Hence comes the danger of speaking of two natures, each having its own specific tasks. In such case, the death of the human nature alone is insufficient."
It's very clear that saying only the human part died doesn't make any sense, Even according to the Christian theology itself.
B. The Trinity is based on a false idea
I know, It's a classic Argument against Christianity but you can't deny that it's an actual damning argument against the Christian theology.

1. God is all knowing but Jesus wasn't all knowing (mark 13:32)
2. Jesus is supposed to be god, but he is praying to himself to save himself with cries and tears?? (Luke 22:41-44)
3. Jesus is god but we can't say he is good because only god is good?? (Luke 18:18-19)
4. God can't be tempted by evil (James 1:13) but yet jesus was tempted by satan?? (Matthew 4:1)
5. Jesus is god but he can't do a thing on his own?? (John 5:31) 6.Jesus is supposed to be the same as the father, But their teachings are different? (John 7:16)

And so many more, Throught the bible i can't help but notice the intense number of verses which clearly states Jesus can't be god.
3-) The Problem of a Historical Jesus (Why we don’t know the actual historical Jesus)
I. No contemporary historical evidence,
A. No historian alive during Jesus day wrote about Jesus despite ample opportunity

1. The kings coming to his birth
2. Herod’s slaughter of baby boys
3. The overthrowing of money changers
4. Jesus triumphant entry into Jerusalem where he is declared king by the whole town.
5. Darkness covering the whole earth for hours on Jesus’ Death
6. The earthquakes at Jesus’ death
7. The rending of the temple veil at Jesus’ Death
8. The resurrection of Jesus that was seen by 500 witnesses.(Only Paul claims that, even tho he never met jesus)

II. The Gospels are contradicting, late hearsay accounts
A. Mark, the earliest gospel, was written at least after 70 A.D. (referencing fall of temple) by a non-eyewitness, and makes numerous cultural and geographical errors that a Jewish writer would not have made such as locations of rivers, cultural customs regarding divorce, locations of towns or Jesus quoting from the greek Septuagint etc. (see geographical and historical errors in this link, https://holtz.org/Library/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Theology/Christianity/Criticism/Bible%20Problems%20by%20Packham%201998.htm#ERRORS )
B. The other gospels all copied from Mark. Luke and Matthew contain over 70% of Mark and mainly make changes in attempts to fix blatant errors made in Mark and to correct Mark’s poor grammar.The writer of Luke even reveals to us in Luke 1:2 that he was not an eyewitness, but that the story has been passed down to him.
C. Four where chosen by the church father Iraeneus because he believed the earth was founded on four pillars and so too, should the gospels be founded by only four accounts.
Iraenus also revealed the names of the Gospels in the late second century, without any reason to assume they where the authentic authors - no one knows who actually wrote them!
D. John was initially considered heretical by the early church because of its variation from the synoptic but was overwhelmingly popular amongst Christians and so was included.
E. The book of Revelations was also considered heretical by many :
For centuries The Revelation was a rejected book. In the 4th century, St.John Chrysostom and other bishops argued against it. Christians in Syria also reject it. The Synod of Laodicea: c. 363, rejected The Revelation. In the late 380s, Gregory of Nazianus produced a canon omitting The Revelation. Bishop Amphilocus of Iconium, in his poem Iambics for Seleucus written some time after 394, rejects The Revelation. When St.Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, producing the Vulgate bible c. 400, he argued for the Veritas Hebraica, meaning the truth of the Jewish Bible over the Septuagint translation. At the insistence of the Pope, however, he added existing translations for what he considered doubtful books: among them The Revelation. The Church in the East never included the Revelation.
4-) The early church did not seem to know anything about a historical Jesus. Huge amounts of disagreement over Jesus in the first hundred years :

1. Some churches didn’t even believe he had a physical body, prompting Paul to write about that very issue.
   
2. There was an enormous debate between all the major early churches as to whether Jesus was divine or not, this was settled at the council of Nicea by the Roman Emperor Constantine.
   

5-) Which Bible?
A. Over 450 English versions of the bible All are translated using different methods and from entirely different manuscripts
B. Thousands of manuscripts disagreeing with each other wildly in what verses and even books they contain.
C. Different translations teach entirely different things in places, some often leaving out entire chapters and verses or containing footnotes warning of possible error due to uncertainty about the reliability of the numerous manuscripts.
Take a look at this example, 1- Revised standard version 2- Revised standard version Catholic edition 3- NEW revised standard version Updated edition 4- NEW revised standard version Catholic edition 5- NEW revised standard version, Anglicised 6- NEW revised standard version, Anglicised Catholic edition
How many attempts would it take to finally get it right ?!
6-) The Morality of the bible
I don't like using Morality as an argument because i believe it's a subjective thing, But I cannot help but notice how the morals of the OT and the NT are completely contradictory
In the OT god was Angry, Vengeful, Demands war, order genocides, Ordered the killing of children and even the ripping open of pregnant women.
But in the NT he somehow became loving, a father figure, saying if anyone hits you you shouldn't even respond back.

• In Conclusion: I don't think Christianity can be accepted as the truth by any logical person (Even most convert stories i heard were basically "I saw jesus in a dream" or "The holy spirit held my hand")

There is so many Theological confusion, A salvation idea that makes 0 sense, Lack of any form of historical critirea of knowing what is true manuscripts and what is hearsays (The authors of the gospels are all Anynomous),
There is even disagreement within Christianity itself about what stories go into the bible (Many stories have been found out to be false like John 8:1-11 and Mark 16:18)
https://textandcanon.org/does-the-woman-caught-in-adultery-belong-in-the-bible/
The lack of consistency on literally everything makes it one of the least convincing religion in my opinion.

"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

The main reason Jesus died on the cross was to defeat Satan and set us free from his oppressive rule. Everything else that Jesus accomplished was to be understood as an aspect and consequence of this victory (e.g., Recapitulation, Moral Influence, etc.).
This understanding of why Jesus had to die is called the Christus Victor (Latin for “Christ is Victorious”) view of the atonement. But, what exactly was Christ victorious from, and why? To find out the answers to these questions, we have to turn to the Old Testament, as that's what the apostles would often allude to in order to properly teach their audience the message they were trying to convey (Rom. 15:4).
The OT is full of conflict between the Father (YHVH) and false gods, between YHVH and cosmic forces of chaos. The Psalms speak of this conflict between YHVH and water monsters of the deeps (an ancient image for chaos) (Psa. 29:3-4; 74:10-14; 77:16, 19; 89:9-10; 104:2-9, etc).
The liberation of Israel from Egypt wasn’t just a conflict between Pharaoh and Moses. It was really between YHVH and the false gods of Egypt.
Regardless of whether you think the aforementioned descriptions are literal or metaphorical, the reality that the Old Testament describes is that humanity lived in a “cosmic war zone.”
The Christus Victor motif is about Christ reigning victorious over wicked principalities and Satan's kingdom, and is strongly emphasized throughout the New Testament. Scripture declares that Jesus came to drive out "the prince of this world” (John 12:31), to “destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), to “destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14) and to “put all enemies under his feet” (1 Cor 15:25). Jesus came to overpower the “strong man” (Satan) who held the world in bondage and worked with his Church to plunder his "palace" (Luke 11:21-22). He came to end the reign of the cosmic “thief” who seized the world to “steal, and to kill, and to destroy” the life YHVH intended for us (John 10:10). Jesus came and died on the cross to disarm “the principalities and powers” and make a “shew of them openly [i.e., public spectacle]” by “triumphing over them in [the cross]” (Col. 2:15).
Beyond these explicit statements, there are many other passages that express the Christus Victor motif as well. For example, the first prophecy in the Bible foretells that a descendent of Eve (Jesus) would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). The first Christian sermon ever preached proclaimed that Jesus in principle conquered all YHVH's enemies (Acts 2:32-36). And the single most frequently quoted Old Testament passage by New Testament authors is Psalm 110:1 which predicts that Christ would conquer all YHVH’s opponents. (Psalm 110 is quoted or alluded to in Matthew 22:41-45; 26:64, Mark 12:35-37; 14:62, Luke 20:41-44; 22:69, Acts 5:31; 7:55-56, Romans 8:34, 1st Corinthians 15:22-25, Ephesians 1:20, Hebrews 1:3; 1:13; 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:11, 15, 17, 21; 8:1; 10:12-13, 1st Peter 3:22, and Revelation 3:21.) According to New Testament scholar Oscar Cullman, the frequency with which New Testament authors cite this Psalm is the greatest proof that Christ’s “victory over the angel powers stands at the very center of early Christian thought.”
Because of man's rebellion, the Messiah's coming involved a rescue mission that included a strategy for vanquishing the powers of darkness.
Since YHVH is a God of love who gives genuine “say-so” to both angels and humans, YHVH rarely accomplishes His providential plans through coercion. YHVH relies on His infinite wisdom to achieve His goals. Nowhere is YHVH's wisdom put more on display than in the manner in which He outsmarted Satan and the powers of evil, using their own evil to bring about their defeat.
Most readers probably know the famous story from ancient Greece about the Trojan Horse. To recap the story, Troy and Greece had been locked in a ten-year-long vicious war when, according to Homer and Virgil, the Greeks came up with a brilliant idea. They built an enormous wooden horse, hid soldiers inside and offered it to the Trojans as a gift, claiming they were conceding defeat and going home. The delighted Trojans accepted the gift and proceeded to celebrate by drinking themselves into a drunken stupor. When night came and the Trojan warriors were too wasted to fight, the Greeks exited the horse, unlocked the city gates to quietly let all their compatriots in, and easily conquered the city, thus winning the war.
Historians debate whether any of this actually happened. But either way, as military strategies go, it’s brilliant.
Now, there are five clues in the New Testament that suggest YHVH was using something like this Trojan Horse strategy against the powers when he sent Jesus into the world:
1) The Bible tells us that YHVH's victory over the powers of darkness was achieved by the employment of YHVH’s wisdom, and was centered on that wisdom having become reality in Jesus Christ (Rom. 16:25, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 3:9-10, Col. 1:26). It also tells us that, for some reason, this Christ-centered wisdom was kept “secret and hidden” throughout the ages. It’s clear from this that YHVH's strategy was to outsmart and surprise the powers by sending Jesus.
2) While humans don’t generally know Jesus’ true identity during his ministry, demons do. They recognize Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, but, interestingly enough, they have no idea what he’s doing (Mark 1:24; 3:11; 5:7, Luke 8:21). Again, the wisdom of YHVH in sending Jesus was hidden from them.
3) We’re told that, while humans certainly share in the responsibility for the crucifixion, Satan and the powers were working behind the scenes to bring it about (John 13:27 cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-8). These forces of evil helped orchestrate the crucifixion.
4) We’re taught that if the “princes of this world [age]” had understood the secret wisdom of YHVH, “they would not have crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor 2:8 cf. vss 6-7). Apparently, Satan and the powers regretted orchestrating Christ’s crucifixion once they learned of the wisdom of YHVH that was behind it.
5) Finally, we can begin to understand why the powers came to regret crucifying “the Lord of glory” when we read that it was by means of the crucifixion that the “handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us [i.e., the charge of our legal indebtedness]” was “[taken] out of the way [i.e., canceled]” as the powers were disarmed. In this way Christ “triumph[ed] over” the powers by "his cross” and even “made a shew of them openly” (Col. 2:14-15). Through Christ’s death and resurrection YHVH's enemies were vanquished and placed under his Messiah's feet, and ultimately His own in the end (1 Cor. 15:23-28).
Putting these five clues together, we can discern YHVH's Trojan Horse strategy in sending Jesus.
The powers couldn’t discern why Jesus came because YHVH's wisdom was hidden from them. YHVH's wisdom was motivated by unfathomable love, and since Satan and the other powers were evil, they lacked the capacity to understand it. Their evil hearts prevented them from suspecting what YHVH was up to.
What the powers did understand was that Jesus was mortal. This meant he was killable. Lacking the capacity to understand that this was the means by which YHVH would ultimately bring about the defeat of death (and thus, pave the road for the resurrection itself), they never suspected that making Jesus vulnerable to their evil might actually be part of YHVH's infinitely wise plan.
And so they took the bait (or "ransom"; Matt. 20:28, Mark 10:45, 1 Tim. 2:5-6). Utilizing Judas and other willing human agents, the powers played right into YHVH’s secret plan and orchestrated the crucifixion of the Messiah (Acts 2:22-23; 4:28). YHVH thus brilliantly used the self-inflicted incapacity of evil to understand love against itself. And, like light dispelling darkness, the unfathomably beautiful act of YHVH's love in sending the willing Messiah as a "ransom" to these blood-thirsty powers defeated them. The whole creation was in principle freed and reconciled to YHVH, while everything written against us humans was nailed to the cross, thus robbing the powers of the only legal claim they had on us. They were “spoiled [i.e., disempowered]” (Col. 2:14-15).
As happened to the Trojans in accepting the gift from the Greeks, in seizing on Christ’s vulnerability and orchestrating his crucifixion, the powers unwittingly cooperated with YHVH to unleash the one power in the world that dispels all evil and sets captives free. It’s the power of self-sacrificial love.

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

For the sake of keeping this already lengthy post as short as possible I'm not going to spend too much time on why exactly PSA (Penal Substitutionary Atonement) is inconsistent with Scripture, but I'll go ahead and point out the main reasons why I believe this is so, and let the reader look further into this subject by themselves, being that there are many resources out there which have devoted much more time than I ever could here in supporting this premise.

"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:"-1 Corinthians 5:7

The Passover is one of the two most prominent images in the New Testament given as a comparison to Christ's atonement and what it accomplished, (the other most common image being the Day of Atonement sacrifice).
In the Passover, the blood of the lamb on the door posts of the Hebrews in the book of Exodus was meant to mark out those who were YHVH's, not be a symbol of PSA, as the lamb itself was not being punished by God in place of the Hebrews, but rather the kingdom of Egypt (and thus, allegorically speaking, the kingdom of darkness which opposed YHVH) was what was being judged and punished, because those who were not "covered" by the blood of the lamb could be easily identified as not part of God's kingdom/covenant and liberated people.
Looking at the Day of Atonement sacrifice (which, again, Christ's death is repeatedly compared to throughout the New Testament), this ritual required a ram, a bull, and two goats (Lev. 16:3-5). The ram was for a burnt offering intended to please God (Lev. 16:3-4). The bull served as a sin offering for Aaron, the high priest, and his family. In this case, the sin offering restored the priest to ritual purity, allowing him to occupy sacred space and be near YHVH’s presence. Two goats taken from "the congregation” were needed for the single sin offering for the people (Lev. 16:5). So why two goats?
The high priest would cast lots over the two goats, with one chosen as a sacrifice “for the Lord” (Lev. 16:8). The blood of that goat would purify the people. The second goat was not sacrificed or designated “for the Lord.” On the contrary, this goat—the one that symbolically carried the sins away from the camp of Israel into the wilderness—was “for Azazel” (Lev. 16:8-10).
What—or who—is Azazel?
The Hebrew term azazel (עזאזל) occurs four times in Leviticus 16 but nowhere else in most people's canon of the Bible, (and I say "most people's canon," because some people do include 1 Enoch in their canon of Scripture, which of course goes into great detail about this "Azazel" figure). Many translations prefer to translate the term as a phrase, “the goat that goes away,” which is the same idea conveyed in the King James Version’s “scapegoat.” Other translations treat the word as a name: Azazel. The “scapegoat” option is possible, but since the phrase “for Azazel” parallels the phrase “for YHVH” (“for the Lord”), the wording suggests that two divine figures are being contrasted by the two goats.
A strong case can be made for translating the term as the name Azazel. Ancient Jewish texts show that Azazel was understood as a demonic figure associated with the wilderness. The Mishnah (ca. AD 200; Yoma 6:6) records that the goat for Azazel was led to a cliff and pushed over, ensuring it would not return with its death. This association of the wilderness with evil is also evident in the New Testament, as this was where Jesus met the devil (Matt. 4:1). Also, in Leviticus 17:1-7 we learn that some Israelites had been accustomed to sacrificing offerings to "devils" (alternatively translated as “goat demons”). The Day of Atonement replaced this illegitimate practice.
The second goat was not sent into the wilderness as a sacrifice to a foreign god or demon. The act of sending the live goat out into the wilderness, which was unholy ground, was to send the sins of the people where they belonged—to the demonic domain. With one goat sacrificed to bring purification and access to YHVH and one goat sent to carry the people’s sins to the demonic domain, this annual ritual reinforced the identity of the true God and His mercy and holiness.
When Jesus died on the cross for all of humanity’s sins, he was crucified outside the city, paralleling the sins of the people being cast to the wilderness via the goat to Azazel. Jesus died once for all sinners, negating the need for this ritual.
As previously stated, the goat which had all the sin put on it was sent alive off to the wilderness, while the blood of the goat which was blameless was used to purify the temple and the people. Penal substitution would necessitate the killing of the goat which had the sin put on it.
Mind you, this is the only sacrificial ritual of any kind in the Torah in which sins are placed on an animal. The only time it happens is this, and that animal is not sacrificed. Most PSA proponents unwittingly point to this ritual as evidence of their view, despite it actually serving as evidence to the contrary, because most people don't read their Old Testament and don't familiarize themselves with the "boring parts" like Leviticus (when it's actually rather important to do so, since that book explains how exactly animal offerings were to be carried out and why they were done in the first place).
In the New Testament, Christ's blood was not only meant to mark out those who were his, but also expel the presence of sin and ritual uncleanness so as to make the presence of YHVH manifest in the believer's life. Notice how God's wrath isn't poured out on Christ in our stead on this view, but rather His wrath was poured out on those who weren't covered, and the presence of sin and evil were merely removed by that which is pure and blameless (Christ's blood) for the believer.
All this is the difference between expiation and propitiation.

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

When the New Testament writers talked about “the gospel,” they referred not to the Protestant doctrine of justification sola fide–the proposition that if we will stop trying to win God’s favor and only just believe that God has exchanged our sin for Christ’s perfect righteousness, then in God’s eyes we will have the perfect righteousness required both for salvation and for assuaging our guilty consciences–but rather they referred to the simple but explosive proposition Kyrios Christos, “Christ is Lord.” That is to say, the gospel was, properly speaking, the royal announcement that Jesus of Nazareth was the God of Israel’s promised Messiah, the King of kings and Lord of lords.
The New Testament writers were not writing in a cultural or linguistic vacuum and their language of euangelion (good news) and euangelizomai would have been understood by their audience in fairly specific ways. Namely, in the Greco-Roman world for which the New Testament authors wrote, euangelion/euangelizomai language typically had to do with either A) the announcement of the accession of a ruler, or B) the announcement of a victory in battle, and would probably have been understood along those lines.
Let’s take the announcements of a new ruler first. The classic example of such a language is the Priene Calendar Inscription, dating to circa 9 BC, which celebrates the rule (and birthday) of Caesar Augustus as follows:
"It was seeming to the Greeks in Asia, in the opinion of the high priest Apollonius of Menophilus Azanitus: Since Providence, which has ordered all things of our life and is very much interested in our life, has ordered things in sending Augustus, whom she filled with virtue for the benefit of men, sending him as a savior [soter] both for us and for those after us, him who would end war and order all things, and since Caesar by his appearance [epiphanein] surpassed the hopes of all those who received the good tidings [euangelia], not only those who were benefactors before him, but even the hope among those who will be left afterward, and the birthday of the god [he genethlios tou theou] was for the world the beginning of the good tidings [euangelion] through him; and Asia resolved it in Smyrna."
The association of the term euangelion with the announcement of Augustus’ rule is clear enough and is typical of how this language is used elsewhere. To give another example, Josephus records that at the news of the accession of the new emperor Vespasian (69 AD) “every city kept festival for the good news (euangelia) and offered sacrifices on his behalf.” (The Jewish War, IV.618). Finally, a papyrus dating to ca. 498 AD begins:
"Since I have become aware of the good news (euangeliou) about the proclamation as Caesar (of Gaius Julius Verus Maximus Augustus)…"
This usage occurs also in the Septuagint, the Greek translations of the Jewish Scriptures. For instance LXX Isaiah 52:7 reads, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news (euangelizomenou), who publishes peace, who brings good news (euangelizomenos) of salvation, who says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.'" Similarly, LXX Isaiah 40:9-10 reads:

"…Go up on a high mountain, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos) to Sion; lift up your voice with strength, you who bring good tidings (ho euangelizomenos); lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Ioudas, “See your God!” Behold, the Lord comes with strength, and his arm with authority (kyrieias)…."-NETS, Esaias 40:9-10

This consistent close connection between euangelion/euangelizomai language and announcements of rule strongly suggests that many of the initial hearers/readers of the early Christians’ evangelical language would likely have understood that language as the announcement of a new ruler (see, e.g., Acts 17:7), and, unless there is strong NT evidence to the contrary, we should presume that the NT writers probably intended their language to be so understood.
However, the other main way in which euangelion/euangelizomai language was used in the Greco-Roman world was with reference to battle reports, announcements of victory in war. A classic example of this sort of usage can be found in LXX 2 Samuel 18:19ff, where David receives word that his traitorous son, Absalom, has been defeated in battle. Euangelion/euangelizomai is used throughout the passage for the communications from the front.
As already shown throughout this post, the NT speaks of Jesus’s death and resurrection as a great victory over the powers that existed at that time and, most importantly, over death itself. Jesus’ conquest of the principalities and powers was the establishment of his rule and comprehensive authority over heaven and earth, that is, of his Lordship over all things (again, at that time).
This was the content of Paul's gospel message...

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

The following quotation is from The Gospel Coalition, and I believe it to be a decently accurate summary of the NPP (New Perspective on Paul), despite it being from a source which is in opposition to it:

The New Perspective on Paul, a major scholarly shift that began in the 1980s, argues that the Jewish context of the New Testament has been wrongly understood and that this misunderstand[ing] has led to errors in the traditional-Protestant understanding of justification. According to the New Perspective, the Jewish systems of salvation were not based on works-righteousness but rather on covenantal nomism, the belief that one enters the people of God by grace and stays in through obedience to the covenant. This means that Paul could not have been referring to works-righteousness by his phrase “works of the law”; instead, he was referring to Jewish boundary markers that made clear who was or was not within the people of God. For the New Perspective, this is the issue that Paul opposes in the NT. Thus, justification takes on two aspects for the New Perspective rather than one; initial justification is by faith (grace) and recognizes covenant status (ecclesiology), while final justification is partially by works, albeit works produced by the Spirit.

I believe what's called the "new perspective" is actually rather old, and that the Reformers' view of Paul is what is truly new, being that the Lutheran understanding of Paul is simply not Biblical.
The Reformation perspective understands Paul to be arguing against a legalistic Jewish culture that seeks to earn their salvation through works. However, supporters of the NPP argue that Paul has been misread. We contend he was actually combating Jews who were boasting because they were God's people, the "elect" or the "chosen ones." Their "works," so to speak, were done to show they were God's covenant people and not to earn their salvation.
The key questions involve Paul’s view(s) of the law and the meaning of the controversy in which Paul was engaged. Paul strongly argued that we are “justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law” (Gal. 2:16b). Since the time of Martin Luther, this has been understood as an indictment of legalistic efforts to merit favor before God. Judaism was cast in the role of the medieval "church," and so Paul’s protests became very Lutheran, with traditional-Protestant theology reinforced in all its particulars (along with its limitations) as a result. In hermeneutical terms, then, the historical context of Paul’s debate will answer the questions we have about what exactly the apostle meant by the phrase "works of the law," along with other phrases often used as support by the Reformers for their doctrine of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), like when Paul mentions "the righteousness of God."
Obviously an in-depth analysis of the Pauline corpus and its place in the context of first-century Judaism would take us far beyond the scope of this brief post. We can, however, quickly survey the topography of Paul’s thought in context, particularly as it has emerged through the efforts of recent scholarship, and note some salient points which may be used as the basis of a refurbished soteriology.
[Note: The more popular scholars associated with the NPP are E.P. Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. Dunn was the first to coin the term "The New Perspective" in a 1983 Manson Memorial Lecture, The New Perspective on Paul and the Law.]
Varying authors since the early 1900's have brought up the charge that Paul was misread by those in the tradition of Martin Luther and other Protestant Reformers. Yet, it wasn't until E.P. Sanders' 1977 book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, that scholars began to pay much attention to the issue. In his book, Sanders argues that the Judaism of Paul's day has been wrongly criticized as a religion of "works-salvation" by those in the Protestant tradition.
A fundamental premise in the NPP is that Judaism was actually a religion of grace. Sander's puts it clearly:
"On the point at which many have found the decisive contrast between Paul and Judaism - grace and works - Paul is in agreement with Palestinian Judaism... Salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works'...God saves by grace, but... within the framework established by grace he rewards good deeds and punishes transgression." (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, p. 543)
N.T. Wright adds that, "we have misjudged early Judaism, especially Pharisaism, if we have thought of it as an early version of Pelagianism," (Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 32).
Sanders has coined a now well-known phrase to describe the character of first-century Palestinian Judaism: “covenantal nomism.” The meaning of “covenantal nomism” is that human obedience is not construed as the means of entering into God’s covenant. That cannot be earned; inclusion within the covenant body is by the grace of God. Rather, obedience is the means of maintaining one’s status within the covenant. And with its emphasis on divine grace and forgiveness, Judaism was never a religion of legalism.
If covenantal nomism was operating as the primary category under which Jews understood the Law, then when Jews spoke of obeying commandments, or when they required strict obedience of themselves and fellow Jews, it was because they were "keeping the covenant," rather than out of legalism.
More recently, N.T. Wright has made a significant contribution in his little book, What Saint Paul Really Said. Wright’s focus is the gospel and the doctrine of justification. With incisive clarity he demonstrates that the core of Paul’s gospel was not justification by faith, but the death and resurrection of Christ and his exaltation as Lord. The proclamation of the gospel was the proclamation of Jesus as Lord, the Messiah who fulfilled Israel’s expectations. Romans 1:3-4, not 1:16-17, is the gospel, contrary to traditional thinking. Justification is not the center of Paul’s thought, but an outworking of it:
"[T]he doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel’. It is implied by the gospel; when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people. But ‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is, as we saw in an earlier chapter, the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ….Let us be quite clear. ‘The gospel’ is the announcement of Jesus’ lordship, which works with power to bring people into the family of Abraham, now redefined around Jesus Christ and characterized solely by faith in him. ‘Justification’ is the doctrine which insists that all those who have this faith belong as full members of this family, on this basis and no other." (pp. 132, 133)
Wright brings us to this point by showing what “justification” would have meant in Paul’s Jewish context, bound up as it was in law-court terminology, eschatology, and God’s faithfulness to God’s covenant.
Specifically, Wright explodes the myth that the pre-Christian Saul was a pious, proto-Pelagian moralist seeking to earn his individual passage into heaven. Wright capitalizes on Paul’s autobiographical confessions to paint rather a picture of a zealous Jewish nationalist whose driving concern was to cleanse Israel of Gentiles as well as Jews who had lax attitudes toward the Torah. Running the risk of anachronism, Wright points to a contemporary version of the pre-Christian Saul: Yigal Amir, the zealous Torah-loyal Jew who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin for exchanging Israel’s land for peace. Wright writes:
"Jews like Saul of Tarsus were not interested in an abstract, ahistorical system of salvation... They were interested in the salvation which, they believed, the one true God had promised to his people Israel." (pp. 32, 33)
Wright maintains that as a Christian, Paul continued to challenge paganism by taking the moral high ground of the creational monotheist. The doctrine of justification was not what Paul preached to the Gentiles as the main thrust of his gospel message; it was rather “the thing his converts most needed to know in order to be assured that they really were part of God’s people” after they had responded to the gospel message.
Even while taking the gospel to the Gentiles, however, Paul continued to criticize Judaism “from within” even as he had as a zealous Pharisee. But whereas his mission before was to root out those with lax attitudes toward the Torah, now his mission was to demonstrate that God’s covenant faithfulness (righteousness) has already been revealed in Jesus Christ.
At this point Wright carefully documents Paul’s use of the controversial phrase “God’s righteousness” and draws out the implications of his meaning against the background of a Jewish concept of justification. The righteousness of God and the righteousness of the party who is “justified” cannot be confused because the term bears different connotations for the judge than for the plaintiff or defendant. The judge is “righteous” if his or her judgment is fair and impartial; the plaintiff or defendant is “righteous” if the judge rules in his or her favor. Hence:
"If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. For the judge to be righteous does not mean that the court has found in his favor. For the plaintiff or defendant to be righteous does not mean that he or she has tried the case properly or impartially. To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge’s righteousness is simply a category mistake. That is not how the language works." (p. 98)
However, Wright makes the important observation that even with the forensic metaphor, Paul’s theology is not so much about the courtroom as it is about God’s love.
Righteousness is not an impersonal, abstract standard, a measuring-stick or a balancing scale. That was, and still is, a Greek view. Righteousness, Biblically speaking, grows out of covenant relationship. We forgive because we have been forgiven (Matt. 18:21-35); “we love" because God “first loved us” (1 John 4:19). Love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10, Gal 5:14, Jam. 2:8). Paul even looked forward to a day when “we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10), and he acknowledged that his clear conscience did not necessarily ensure this verdict (1 Cor. 4:4), but he was confident nevertheless. Paul did in fact testify of his clear conscience: “For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation [i.e., behavior] in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward” (2 Cor. 1:12). He was aware that he had not yet “attained” (Phil. 3:12-14), that he still struggled with the flesh, yet he was confident of the value of his performance (1 Cor. 9:27). These are hardly the convictions of someone who intends to rest entirely on the merits of an alien righteousness imputed to his or her account.
Wright went on to flesh out the doctrine of justification in Galatians, Philippians, and Romans. The “works of the law” are not proto-Pelagian efforts to earn salvation, but rather “sabbath [keeping], food-laws, circumcision” (p. 132). Considering the controversy in Galatia, Wright writes:
"Despite a long tradition to the contrary, the problem Paul addresses in Galatians is not the question of how precisely someone becomes a Christian, or attains to a relationship with God….The problem he addresses is: should his ex-pagan converts be circumcised or not? Now this question is by no means obviously to do with the questions faced by Augustine and Pelagius, or by Luther and Erasmus. On anyone’s reading, but especially within its first-century context, it has to do quite obviously with the question of how you define the people of God: are they to be defined by the badges of Jewish race, or in some other way? Circumcision is not a ‘moral’ issue; it does not have to do with moral effort, or earning salvation by good deeds. Nor can we simply treat it as a religious ritual, then designate all religious ritual as crypto-Pelagian good works, and so smuggle Pelagius into Galatia as the arch-opponent after all. First-century thought, both Jewish and Christian, simply doesn’t work like that…. [T]he polemic against the Torah in Galatians simply will not work if we ‘translate’ it into polemic either against straightforward self-help moralism or against the more subtle snare of ‘legalism’, as some have suggested. The passages about the law only work — and by ‘work’ I mean they will only make full sense in their contexts, which is what counts in the last analysis — when we take them as references to the Jewish law, the Torah, seen as the national charter of the Jewish race." (pp. 120-122)
The debate about justification, then, “wasn’t so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.” (p. 119)
To summarize the theology of Paul in his epistles, the apostle mainly spent time arguing to those whom he were sending letters that salvation in Christ was available to all men without distinction. Jews and Gentiles alike may accept the free gift; it was not limited to any one group. Paul was vehement about this, especially in his letter to the Romans. As such, I will finish this post off by summarizing the letter itself, so as to provide Biblical support for the premises of the NPP and for what the scholars I referenced have thus far argued.
After his introduction in the epistle to an already believing and mostly Gentile audience (who would've already been familiar with the gospel proclaimed in verses 3-4), Paul makes a thematic statement in 1:16: “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” This statement is just one of many key statements littered throughout the book of Romans that give us proper understanding of the point Paul wished to make to the interlocutors of his day, namely, salvation is available to all, whether Jew or Gentile.
In 1:16 Paul sets out a basic theme of his message in the letter to the Romans. All who believed, whether they be Jew or Gentile, were saved by the power of the gospel. The universal nature of salvation was explicitly stated. The gospel saved all without distinction, whether Jew or Greek; salvation was through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Immediately after this thematic declaration, Paul undertakes to show the universal nature of sin and guilt. In 1:18-32 Paul shows how the Gentile is guilty before God. Despite evidence of God and his attributes, which is readily available to all, they have failed to honor YHVH as God and have exchanged His glory for idolatrous worship and self-promotion. As a consequence, God handed them over in judgment (1:18-32). Paul moves to denunciation of those who would judge others while themselves being guilty of the very same offenses (2:1-5) and argues that all will be judged according to their deeds (2:6). This judgment applies to all, namely, Jew and Greek (2:9-10). This section serves as somewhat of a transition in Paul’s argument. He has highlighted the guilt of the Gentiles (1:18ff) and will shortly outline the guilt of the Jew (2:17-24). The universal statement of 2:1-11 sets the stage for Paul’s rebuke of Jewish presumption. It was not possession of the Law which delivered; it was faithful obedience. It is better to have no Law and yet to obey the essence of the Law (2:12-16) than to have the Law and not obey (2:17-3:4). Paul then defends the justice of God’s judgment (3:5-8), which leads to the conclusion that all (Jew and Gentile) are guilty before God (3:9).
Paul argues that it was a mistaken notion to think that salvation was the prerogative of the Jew only. This presumption is wrong for two reasons. First, it leads to the mistaken assumption that only Jews were eligible for this vindication (Paul deals with this misunderstanding in chapter 4 where he demonstrates that Abraham was justified by faith independently of the Law and is therefore the father of all who believe, Jew and Gentile alike). Second, it leads to the equally mistaken conclusion that all who were Jews are guaranteed of vindication. Paul demonstrates how this perspective, which would call God’s integrity into question since Paul was assuming many Jews would not experience this vindication, was misguided. He did this by demonstrating that it was never the case that all physical descendants of Israel (Jacob) were likewise recipients of the promise. In the past (9:6-33) as in the present (at that time; 11:1-10), only a remnant was preserved and only a remnant would experience vindication. Paul also argued that the unbelief of national Israel (the non-remnant) had the purpose of extending the compass of salvation. The unbelief of one group made the universal scope of the gospel possible. This universalism was itself intended to bring about the vindication of the unbelieving group (11:11-16). As a result of faith, all (Jew and Gentile) could be branches of the olive tree (11:17-24). Since faith in Christ was necessary to remain grafted into the tree, no one could boast of his position. All, Jew and Gentile alike, were dependent upon the mercy and grace of God. As a result of God’s mysterious plan, He would bring about the vindication of His people (11:25-27). [Note: It is this author's belief that this vindication occurred around 66-70 AD, with the Parousia of Christ's Church; this author is Full-Preterist in their Eschatology.]

Kadillac Kirk had been a good friend of mine for several years. I had met him through friends from The Spring Stage; and he never had anything to do with The Imp, which is why he didn’t appear in the Married Mary saga. Mary would have totally thrown herself at him, and Kirk would have definitely “thrown it in her.” He loved the ladies and often remarked that there was no such thing as an unappealing woman, nor was there anything sweeter than finding the pearl of passion in an outwardly plain dame. Fortunately for Kirk, he never met Mary. This was probably fortunate for Mary as well, seeing as Kirk was a confirmed bachelor and his rakish nature might have broken her fat heart.
Kirk was an older guy. Not MOE old, though. He was in his early forties, but he easily passed for a carefree dude in his 30s... not that he lied about his age. I only mention this trait to juxtapose Kirk’s genuine youthful air with Moe’s unconvincing youthful farce. Kirk dressed normally, avoided stupid jargon, and never busted out gimmicks like tarot cards or spells. He just existed, behaved affably, and people liked him for it.
He drove a classic 1962 Cadillac El Dorado convertible with red leather interior, and he lived in a charmingly quaint (and ridiculously expensive) neighborhood. How he made his fortune remained a mystery, but he never bloviated about his wealth. He just threw spectacular parties and people showed up. And, to my knowledge, he never tried to lure women into bed with his money (although I’m sure he got his fair share of boom-boom thanks to his digs and his wheels, even if the gold-diggers denied their monetary agendas).
Kirk was legitimately handsome. He was a drummer, he had a full head of black hair, he was clean-shaven, he worked out, and he knew all the hidden gems in Wellsprings. So why hadn’t I tried... or even desired to date him? I don’t know. I just didn’t feel drawn to him like that. He felt like a cool uncle and he had, thus far, never done anything to change my perception. Plus, the age difference weirded me out a little. Kirk didn’t look forty; but knowing that he had so much more life experience than I did created a power imbalance that would have creeped me out if we’d been dating. As buddies, I just felt supremely cool riding in his Cadillac, smoking Fantasia cigarettes, and hitting the speakeasies and jazz clubs I would have never known about if it weren’t for Kirk’s connections.
And he had been a good person to talk to about my romantic woes. He never lecherously suggested that I should date him, and he gave the type of tempered advice that only comes with lived experience. But he often lightly mocked me for my crush on Dennis and he did a hilarious impression of Smegal popping too soon over his “precious.” So when Mary “got me back” by doing whatever she did with to Dennis, I called Kadillac Kirk and told him the drinks were on me if he’d be my designated driver for the night.
Why hadn’t I called Whisky??? Well, A) Kirk was way more fun to hang out with, at least from my past experiences up to that point. And B) I needed to bitch about a boy, something I couldn’t do in good conscience in front of a guy I was dating. So I put on the sexiest plunging halter dress I owned, applied heavy eye makeup and spikey accessories, braved a pair of stilettos, and sashayed out to Kirk’s convertible. I felt like a badass rock star. I probably looked like a try-hard hooker.
Kirk: Daaaaay-um! Somebody really did do a number on you, huh? I know you said you were upset, but the gents are gonna be writing thank you notes to that fat girl and that butt-fucking hobbit.
Me: I just need to feel pretty and numb. And I trust you to keep me from making a fool of myself.
Kirk squeezed my shoulder. “I’ve got you. You do whatever you need to do to get rid of these demons.”
He sparked up a J and offered me the first puff. I gladly accepted. He took one puff of his own, but said that the rest was mine since he didn’t want to drive stoned. See? He was responsible! Weed wasn’t legal in California yet, so I got a little bit baked before I stashed the sativa in the glove box and wrapped a scarf around my hair like a starlet from the Golden Age of Hollywood. Kirk sped out of the parking lot and said he was taking me to a downtown hotel that was hosting a party that night in their lush lobby.
Kadillac Kirk pulled up to the main entrance, paid the valet, and then opened my door. I was wobbly from the weed. And I had stupidly decided to wear heels. You can get high or you can wear high (heels). You can’t have both. Not if you’ve repeatedly injured both ankles (as I have). I had to take Kirk’s arm to keep from keeling over. “Can people tell I’m stoned?” I whispered. Kirk replied, “Nobody’s paying any attention to anyone else’s intoxication. I promise you that much.” I nodded, steadied myself, and strutted alongside my very cool friend, feeling a little more confident.
A live jazz orchestra was playing Cole Porter as we entered the lobby. Everything sparkled. The music was even more intoxicating than the spliff had been. “Just One of Those Things” brought tears to my eyes since the lyrics hit every raw nerve regarding the Dennis debacle. But I smiled. It might sound mental, but being distraught over a trash fire of a one-sided romance was exhilarating. Immature, for sure. But also exhilarating. You see, that kind of sadness doesn’t hurt. Not really. It stings. It leaves little bruises, but it’s very safe to wallow in because you haven’t actually lost anything. Melancholia over that which you never had is as sweet as it is bitter; and that type of twisted splendor is rivaled only by Stendhal.
“Here's hoping we meet now and then. It was great fun, but it was just one of those things.” I sang along with the band, and a fat tear rolled down past my melancholic smile and onto my chin. Kirk brushed it aside. “Too close to home?” I wiped away the remnants of the tear’s journey from eye to chin and smiled a more genuine smile. “The perfect distance from home. Shall we get drinks? Remember, I’m buying.”
Kirk: No, no. This is your time to heal. And I’m here as your pal, not your chauffeur. What would the lady like?”
I pretended to barf. Kirk knew I hated it when he got overly formal and overly attentive. So he did it just to mess with me. “Shot of vodka,” I replied.
Kirk: How many?
I thought briefly. “FIVE.”
Kirk: Five to one, baby. One in five...
Me: No one here gets out alive.
Kirk: Are you able to hold yourself upright, or should you come with?
I took a seat on an ornate, damask-upholstered chaise lounge. “I’ll be okay. And I was kidding about the five shots.”
I sat there lost in the music for a while. I thought very little about Dennis. Even less about Mary. And not at all about Whisky (whom I had shagged less than a week ago). My mind danced through the ornate lighting in the hotel lobby, and I suddenly felt the need to join the hoity-toity guests on the dancefloor!
Kirk returned with four shots of vodka. Two for him, two for me. That was quite reasonable of him. He knew damn well that I couldn’t handle five shots, but he also knew that I was in a... state. One that called for more than a single shot. I raised a both miniature glasses to “No more ninnyhammers or hairy-footed lovers.” Kirk did his hilarious Smegal impression, we double-toasted, and downed the shots. The band launched into “Let’s Misbehave,” and I kicked off my stilettos and made a beeline for the dance floor.
“There’s something wild about you child that’s so contagious. Let’s be outrageous! Let’s misbehave.” Kadillac Kirk swept me up, twirled me around, and dipped me as we both sang along with the lyrics. I wasn’t swooning for him, but I was enthralled by the moment. The music, the dancing, the combination of booze and bud... so I kissed him as he pulled me back to my feet. And he kissed back. In a way that Dennis never had. In a way that Whisky’s beard wouldn’t permit. I didn’t feel the visceral sensations that I’d felt when Dennis had kissed me, but it felt nice to feel desired. And then I noticed that other guests were watching us and applauding. Now, that was a dopamine rush if ever there was one!
I gently broke away from the embrace, high-fived Kirk and returned to the chaise lounge to put my stupid shoes back on. He followed me and smashed his face back onto mine. I pulled away and laughed. “It was a moment,” I told him. “I appreciate the dance, and that kiss was the perfect finale. But it’s not happening again.”
Kirk: Not to worry, Valerie. I know you. I knew all along that we were performing, and I was more than happy to be your scene partner.
Me: And dance partner! Those were some excellent moves! I didn’t know you had ballroom training.
Kirk: You name it, I’ve mastered it. Another drink for the lady?
I pretended to barf again. “Not yet. I’m not sad right now. Do you mind if I just sit here and enjoy the music?”
Kirk: Ah. My kisses do have healing properties...
I flipped my hand up at him. “Knock that shit off, bro. I wanted to hang out with you because I trust you not to get weird. Even if I get weird, I know you have the maturity to balance me out.”
Kirk: Are you calling me old???
Me: No. I’m calling you rational, responsible, and respectful.
Kirk: Well, now. If you can articulate an alliterative statement that fluently, then you clearly aren’t drunk enough!
I dismissed this comment as a joke. And he did indeed knock off the flirtation. We had a perfectly pleasant time chatting and dancing (no more kissing, though). And then I noticed a girl I knew from Into the Woods entering the lobby. She’d played Florinda and I’d played Little Red. I called her name and waved enthusiastically. She waved back. And then her date entered. It was D.E.N.N.I.S. I sank into the chaise. Kirk caught on immediately. “The hobbit???” he asked. I nodded silently. “You wanna make out again?” he enthused. I shook my head. I had to go say hello to Flo. And I had an idea...
I crossed the lobby, smiled, squealed, and hugged her.
Florinda: Lil’ Red! It’s been forever! So glad to see you!!! This is my friend, Denny.
From the corner of my eye. I could see Dennis shifting uncomfortably. I refused to look directly at him, neglected to acknowledge Flo's introduction and continued to converse only with her. "So glad to see you, too! What have you been up to since we left the woods?"
Dennis: C’mon, Val...
Florinda (appearing oblivious to the iciness between me and Dennis): Oh, I had some drama after the show closed. I'll have to tell you about it some other time... Have you seen Prince Big Bad (Scumbanger) lately?
I laughed. “Last time I saw him, he was hitting on some nasty fat chick at The Imp.”
Flo and I both scoffed at the pervy pest. Into the Woods was where I’d initially met Scumbanger. He played The Wolf/Cinderella’s Prince. Again... typecasting. There’s a whole essay in my brain about my first encounter with the pest, during which he quoted the song that he sang to me in the show, “Hello, Little Girl.” But it gets into some pretty uncomfortable territory because he made me feel... excited. Well, excited and scared. Nothing of note happened during Into the Woods, but our odd interactions did kind of set the stage for some extremely regrettable events during that Cats cast party.
I excused myself, saying that I needed to get back to my friend. And then I leaned in and said in a hushed voice to Flo, “Watch your ass with that one. If he’s the Denny I’m thinking of...” I gave her a look that only another female would be able to read. Her eyebrows shot up and she nodded. Dennis continued to shift as though he were trying to hold in a massive dump. “BABE! Uh...”
Flo apparently answered to that moniker as well. “What is it, Denny? Don’t worry. That was just telepathic girl talk. You apparently have a reputation...”
Dennis: Different Denny. I assure you I’m a pious gentleman.
Me: Ah. My mistake. Well, then. You guys have a good time! They’re playing Cole Porter, and the band is delovely. Great to see you, Flo!
I hugged Flo again, gave Dennis a curt nod, ignored the scent of mandarins and mountain air, and returned to Kirk.
I collapsed on the chaise lounge, exhausted from holding back the rage. I had no right to be mad at Florinda. I hadn’t seen her in three years, so how was she supposed to know that I’d had a thing with Dennis? Hell, I couldn’t even be mad at Dennis because the last time he and I had spoken in any meaningful way, I’d told him that I was no longer entertaining my crush on him. So why was I surprised to see him dating??? And why had he never taken ME out on a date like this??? And why wasn’t I smitten with Kadillac Kirk who HAD taken me out on a date like this, was an objectively excellent kisser, and a bona fide BALLER? What was wrong with me???
Kirk suggested going down the street to a quaint little bar and then sobering up at a diner closer to my apartment. I numbly nodded and followed him in silence for a few blocks. He assured me that I had “turned several heads” on the way to the new location, but I neither cared nor believed him. This wasn't the type of numbness I'd been aiming for. Now I needed to get schnockered. “Five shots of vodka, please.” Yes, I was serious.
Kadillac Kirk, my reliable designated driver, ordered only a beer and watched in something across between astonishment, concern, and delight as I slammed all five shots in rapid succession. I half expected to immediately retch all over the bar. But I felt fine. I half expected to immediately lose consciousness and wake up in the hospital. But I remained coherent. How I’d managed to take in that much hard liquor and suffer no direct consequences, I’ll never know.
I think I wanted to suffer. I wanted to either feel nothing at all or to feel a sickness bad enough to distract me from the scorching sting that pulsed through my being when I realized that I had lost the abstract notion I’d been addicted to this entire time. Hope. It wasn’t Dennis himself I couldn’t quit. It was that drug called hope. The hope that maybe, just maybe Dennis would give our romance a fair chance. The hope that maybe, just maybe he would make peace with himself, get his mind out of his crotch, and enjoy some agenda-free togetherness. The hope that maybe, just maybe he would stop bloviating about his admittedly impressive accomplishments for five fucking minutes and ask about my life. I had my own reasonably impressive accomplishments, even if they paled in comparison to his. A proper suitor would have enjoyed hearing about them.
But seeing him out with another woman, a woman who had no reason to parade her Dennis escapades before me as some means of revenge, a woman he was clearly courting of his own volition... My hope had died. It died before I’d had time to wean myself off it. Now I had to mourn the loss of hope, which is a very tricky brand of grief to navigate. Vodka wasn’t the answer, but it was what I had to work with. So it would have to do.
After enough time had passed without vomiting or collapsing, I asked Kirk to bring his car around to the bar so that I didn’t have to walk two and a half blocks drunk and in heels. He nodded and dramatically leaned in for a kiss. I recoiled. “DUDE! I told you. The moment has passed.”
Kirk: I beg your pardon. I misread your eyes. Thought I saw a green light...
Me: It’s fine. I just want to go home while I’m still feeling okay.
Kirk: Of course. Your chariot will be here soon.
He skipped off to fetch his Cadillac and I noticed that the lights in the bar were beginning to dance a bit. This should have been concerning. But then I realized that I was giggling. Wait... What? Oh shit. Sure, I was drunk from those shots. But what I was feeling in that moment wasn’t drunkery. It was stonery. Kirk probably misread my face because my pupils were dilated. Not from desire, but from drug use.
Some of you might be thinking that I was a bad friend for not introducing Lucy, an old dude connoisseur, to Kirk. Well... I did. Several years before the events of this story. He adored her. She, on the other hand, thought he was immature. And she wasn’t wrong. Lucy was astute when it came to sussing out a person’s true nature. Far more astute than I. Her initial assessment that Kirk was immature is about to be vindicated. Stretch those cringe muscles! It’s almost time for pie...
I somehow managed to get to his car. I honestly don’t recall how I got there. Did one of the bartenders carry me? Did some kind patron allow me to lean on him? Had Kadillac Kirk carried me out? I’m not sure. But my memory ceases to be fuzzy about halfway to the 24-hour diner. It might have been the very same 24-hour diner where Mary pulled her... shenanigans. I’ll never know.
Kirk: Would you say that you’re more drunk or more stoned?
Me: STONED. Definitely stoned.
Kirk made some sort of grunty noise and reached for my thigh. I slapped his hand.
Kirk: Stoned but not amorous? That’s rare.
I started laughing rather unkindly. “You’re a fucking horndog! I thought you were my safe straight male friend, dammit.”
Kirk: I solemnly swear that your safety is my primary concern, my stoned beauty.
I pretended to throw up.
Kirk: So... You’re not horny. But are you hungry? The diner I’m heading to makes this Maple Walnut Pie with the most sumptuous... sensual cream and exquisite drizzling of...
Me: Ew! Stop trying to bang the pie. Bro. Are YOU stoned? (Then I remembered the question.) Yes, I’m hungry. But I don’t like nuts. I’ll have banana cream.
Kirk made that repulsive grunty noise again. “Uhhhhh... Mmmmmm. Cream. Yessssss. Yes, we’ll be there in just a minute.” He was squirming in the driver's seat.
Me: GROSS, DUDE! If you’re gonna be like that I’ll just order HASH brows. Get it? Hash??? (I giggled.) You can’t make that sound nasty.
Kirk: Forgive my jokes. I think my blood sugar’s a bit low.
As Kirk parked, I began to wonder how I might get away with walking shoeless into the diner. The stilettos had to get off my feet. At least while I was walking. And Kirk was kind enough to give me his socks and wear his loafers “island style” into the establishment. Okay, that was gallant of him. Maybe he was going to behave himself for the rest of the evening.
I wasn’t terribly talkative as we sat down, and he expressed a bit of concern for my emotional well-being. I wasn’t coherent enough to explain what was happening to my emotions and I wasn’t sure I trusted him with my deep, dark secrets at that point. So I shrugged like a sulky teenager, ran my hands over my messy, windblown hair, and mumbled that I was “just hungry.” And right on cue, a very kind, slightly older waitress with a sweet southern accent stopped by to take our order.
Kirk: Ah, yes. We’ll have two cups of black coffee. And we’ll share a slice of that delectable Maple Walnut Pie.
Waitress: Oh, honey. That pie is scrumptious! I take it you’ve been here before?
Kirk: I have. This will be her first time to taste the splendor.
I hated to be a killjoy, but I interrupted and said to the waitress, “Ma’am? I’m sure the Maple Walnut is excellent, but could I please get a slice of Banana Cream? And a big glass of ice water?
Waitress: Sure, hon! Banana Cream’s just as yummy! I’ll be right back with those coffees and that big water.
Kirk was sucking on the tip of his forefinger and shaking his head a bit. “You’re passing up so many sensational... sensual...”
I put my forehead on the table and growled. “You swore you’d stop being nasty!” I held this #headdesk pose for quite some time before I finally lifted my head... only to see that Kirk was still sucking his fingertip and staring at me like a wild animal. “Pleeeeeease be normal,” I whined. “It’s been a really weird night for me.”
Kirk: Indeed. Many surprises. You know... You’re like titanium. Your flame burns so fast and so bright, if a guy doesn’t get in there while the iron is hot, he’ll never get another chance. I was too slow.
What the...? I was pretty sure he was wrong about titanium burning quickly. I’m no chemistry wiz, but my dad and my oldest brother are both big-brains when it comes to physics and chemistry. So I picked up some things just listening to them talk. Accurate or inaccurate, Kirk was being creepy again. He’d never been creepy towards me before, although I’d seen him act like this with other women. Usually with staggering success. Why????? His money. It had to be his money. Kirk was a nice-looking man, but holy shit... No amount of good looks could save this creep show
And then, our sweet waitress sat down our coffees, my water, and the two slices of pie. After I gulped down a whole bunch of water, I grabbed a fork, prepared to quell my munchies... and then I froze. Kirk was quickly flicking his finger back and forth across the top of his pie. And moaning. He noticed my wide-eyed stare, smirked, sucked the tip of his thumb, picked up the plate with both hands, and began flicking his tongue across the tip of the triangular pie slice. And moaning some more. Well, there went my appetite.
Kirk took his middle finger and jabbed it into the crustless vertex of the pie slice, then he began pumping it in and out like a piston, and flicking his thumb across the increasingly demolished top layer of whipped cream. He gasped this time. People were starting to stare. His pointer finger joined his middle finger in the piston action, and he replaced his thumb with his tongue. Between flicks of the tongue, he groaned, “Oh yeah, baby... Let me taste you,” but it was kind of hard to understand him.
And I was either about to run to the back office, tell them that I was in danger and needed a police escort home... OR I was about to burst out laughing at the spectacle. Kirk continued... He removed his fingers and gregariously licked pie filling off of them. "Ohhhhh," he groaned, "I got you soooo sticky. So sweet. So moist." And then he started sucking his fingertips again, switching from middle to pointer, middle to pointer and emitting a delighted little, “Mmmmmm” with every suck.
Finally, he jabbed his fingers back into the utterly destroyed pie, lowered his face into the mess and lapped loudly and passionately, moaning, grunting, and mumbling “Come on, baby. Come on. Mmmmmm. Come on.” I could see the waitress and some dude in a suit heading over to the table, so I sank down in my seat, partially covered my face, but continued to watch the train wreck. At last, Kirk shuddered violently as he splatted his entire hand onto the plate and rubbed furiously. And then he locked eyes with me. He sucked the tip of his thumb one final time and said, “You...” There was a long pause during which Kirk lovingly stroked the mess he’d made. “You... are the pie.”
I don’t hang out with Kadillac Kirk anymore. But he’s still a bachelor, ladies!

I (F22) am aware of the fact that schizophrenia is not the only condition where one experiences hallucinations or delusions, and that one's like psychosis or bipolar types also get to a point of experiencing it. My mother has had agoraphobia for ages, had post-partum depression where she would hallucinate and hear voices whilist carrying my now schizophrenic brother, and did experience psychotic delusions two years ago due to taking the wrong thyroid medication which altered her system. As I said, my brother is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, and well, overall my family has a history of undiagnosed conditions (aka my uncle later finding out he's got ADHD/Autism and is one of those avobe avarage people intelligence wise), my biological father has BPD... etc.
Now, I have always been a really internal person, and whichever delusion or hallucination I was having, unless I was having out of body experience terrors I wouldn't say. My delusions have always been very steong beliefs and convictions, but I've never imposed them out loud or spoke on them out loud. Only during the time where I was advocating for opening your third eye, and the time I thought becoming a muslim was going to save me from the warmth of God, I was loud about it. Religious terror has always been present though, very intensely. On the other side, complete apathy of the thing whenever my delusion would come crashing down in front of me. Like when a parent promises you something and they don't keep their words, you end up holding resentment towards them.
Anyway, since I was little I remember having these 'strange' convictions and/or hellucinations.
The first one I remember having was a delusion that angels woukld come get me. I was around 6/7 and (unfortunately) I was already on Facebook. I received one of those good luck e-mails, but it had something about angels, my mind saw hidden messages about how angels would come and get me to make all my dreams come true. But I didn't want to be taken away, so I ran towards my parents crying my heart out that I didn't want to be taken away and thag angels were after me. I was really terrified, when they read over it, nothing gave the illusion that someone could transcript the message into being kidnapped by angels. They tried to convince me that 'angels' referred to them giving me what I wanted. I was able to calm down somewhat.
We moved years later to another house, and I was convinced there were demons in it. They would throw rocks at me when I would sleep at my parent's bed or floor.
Then years later, related also to angels, I had an hallucination/delusion. I have danced since I was 5, and at 10/11 we built a studio in the garage of our new house. My mother and father happened to be out and were on their way one, people who came to do classes were leaving (it had finished), but I started to tremble terribly. I didn't want to go to my house (above) alone by myself because I didn't want 'them' to take me or hurt me and I hennuinely thought I would be in danger. Which from that point is normal, I was a kid. But at that age, I already was experiencing horrible delusions about the house being haunted by the owner (who wasn't dead yet at the time.) The hallucination happened when I was convinced to go up and just relax (I was having a full on panic attack.) I went home and when I was crossing the hallway I saw a tall angel with white small wings and curled golden hair go into the living room. I BOLTED out of the house. They had to stay until my parents arrived.
During the time we were living at that house I used to be under the illusion that no one was real. That they were reptiles using skins and I was the only one who was a human and couldn't let them find out. So I never said anything about it, in fear they'd kill me or send me away from earth. That did end up going away somewhat (lingering in the back of my mind from time to time.) Years later I started hurting myself because it would help me release the pent up anxieties, and would distract me from delusions and hallucinations. Then I got an ED, not eating and laxatives would make my beliefs that my house was haunted even worst.
The ghosts and demons delusions/hallucinations have always been persistent and is something that is present everyday of my life (I can't get rid of it.) So, you can imagine tha I have throught my life experienced my share of them and all nighters because I couldn't let them win and take me away.
I will not get like into ALL of them, because at one point it gets repetitive. But there's two that really marked a before and after. The first one was when before my brother got a diagnosis he thought he'd been cussed, so my mother, seeing the distressed state he was in, took him to a 'santanera'. She told him he had been cursed and had 15 demons trying to kill him blab blah. So he got an exorcism done to him, by my father, and I was the only other person in the house. I was in such distrease while it underwent, hearing my brother scream for help like he was being murdered that I got into this elusive state that the house was shaking. So, the house shook, I shook, the picture of my mothers grand parents avobe me shook, and I saw them protecting me. (they're both dead) but I knew they were protecting me. It was really crazy and it felt so real for me, and him.
And the other one was when I was working night shifts. Eight months into it I started having negative hallucinations and delusions. I was chased by the 'jello-man' (who not lives in my wall), he wasn't necessarily bad. Demons were threatening to cut me in half and put me in the freezer, but he seemed to just linger like a protector. It was a really creazy time. Having pánico attack after panic attack, talking to imaginary people at work, and hyperventilating while I tried to attend clients at the same time.
After I left work, I got better. And I tried to get healthy. I was able to recover from that terrifying state, I eveb left tarot and spirituality, terrified it would gill me (since I tried to commit for both the weight of my life/mental state and because if I did life for my family would get better through it.) And now, I am full deep on delusion. It was pressive, slowly. I am both aware that it sounds crazy but at the same time equally as convinced that it is real. The Jell-O man is back, now on my wall. But it started with one bad thing after another happening, and I believe thag someone has cursed me. I suspect from friends and even family members. I feel chased, by a famale entity. I moved again to a very big house and the second week in I saw my aunt walking towards were my room was but when I asked my mom she told me that my aunt hadn't moved from the kitchen. But I Heard the window, and I SAW her. And that must've been a demon or doppelganger, what would it be if not. And now I'm back at thag same job I had back then, only not at night, because I need money. And that place is extra cursed. And since I'm cursed it aggravates me seeing things. I keep seeing the same man I did when I worked there back in 2021, and I am terrified by it.
Another thing I should mention is I am hypochondriac, but it's really weird because I will full on believe I am dying. I have the belief that my body is deteriorating/rotting, and I live everyday with the fear that I am going to drop death every day. I have thought I was having a heart attack, thatg I had a heart condition, that I had breast cancer, that I had endometriosis, sclerosis,... Etc, I have overobssesed with it and convinced myself, saying my goodbyes and crying about me dying. But from those times only 2 of them J have gone to the doctors because I would actually have sensations that then for the doctors would not make sense of why I was having them because results were okay.
I am not sure if this could be schizophrenia, or if this could be any other condition that's similar. I don't know how to live any other way, so I don't know how it feels to not see things and believe crazy things. I struggle to communicate with people, so I don't know if it would even work to reach out professionally. It just exhausts me so much. I need the sounds to cease.
Should I reach out to someone, or could this be because of something I can repair myself without external need?
Thank u.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cl5548dq2dno
Mandy McAuley Reporter, BBC Spotlight Published 21 May 2024, 06:01 BST Updated 1 hour ago A loyalist killer has claimed the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) believed Billy Wright, the organisation’s leader in Mid Ulster, was a state agent.
Laurence Maguire told BBC NI’s Spotlight programme he had been called to answer questions about Wright for a UVF inquiry in the 1990s.
Maguire said he had begun to have suspicions when Wright stopped him from killing three suspected Irish Republican Army (IRA) members, who were later killed by the republican group - accused of being state agents.
The revelation comes after the government asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether to keep some intelligence on UVF murders a secret.
Laurence Maguire Image caption, Laurence Maguire speaking to BBC Northern Ireland’s Spotlight programme
The loyalist paramilitary group has been linked to multiple killings.
Parts of Laurence Maguire’s interview were first broadcast in 2019, but further details of what he told Spotlight have become more relevant because of information which emerged at recently stalled inquests.
Maguire, who was jailed in 1994 for five murders, told Spotlight that Wright had asked him to track three men believed to be in the IRA.
He described following them weekly, and his plan to shoot them in a rural park outside Dungannon.
But, he said, whenever he proposed the attack, Billy Wright “was putting it back”.
“I thought there was something strange about it, and when I look back now, it seems there was a lot of strange things about it,” Maguire said.
Aidan Starrs, John Dignam and Gregory Burns IMAGE SOURCE,PACEMAKER Image caption, L-R Aidan Starrs, John Dignam and Gregory Burns were abducted and killed by the IRA
Shortly afterwards, in July 1992, the three men – Gregory Burns, Aidan Starrs and John Dignam – were abducted and killed by the IRA.
The IRA said all three men were informers, and had been involved in the murder of Portadown woman Margaret Perry because she had learned that Burns was working for the intelligence services.
Former IRA member Tommy McKearney, whose brother and uncle were killed by Wright’s gang, said Maguire’s story raised the question of whether Wright had been protecting the IRA men because they were informants.
If Wright “was an agent”, he asked, “was he acting on orders to prevent Laurence Maguire operating against them?”
Maguire said he had subsequently been questioned by the UVF as part of an investigation into “suspicions” about Wright.
“I think it came to light that he was definitely working for somebody else.
“I just call it the Crown," he said.
Bernie McKearney Image caption, Bernie McKearney's husband and parents were killed in 1992
An inquest into UVF murders in Mid Ulster heard earlier this year that the late Progressive Unionist Party leader, David Ervine, had headed just such an inquiry into Billy Wright.
The court heard the investigation had collapsed when another senior UVF figure, and suspected police informer, Robin Jackson, did not show up to testify against Wright.
Jackson, who has since died, was also named in court documents as being suspected of involvement in a number of attacks in Mid Ulster.
Bernie McKearney’s husband and parents were killed in attacks carried out by Mid Ulster UVF in 1992.
Inquests into the deaths of Kevin and John McKearney, and Charles and Teresa Fox, stalled earlier this year when the secretary of state took legal action to prevent some material from being released.
“I do get emotional at times and I hate it, because I try to be a strong person,” Bernie McKearney said.
“But it has been hard knowing that if Kevin had have got the protection that state agents got, he could be living today."
Kevin and John McKearney scene IMAGE SOURCE,PACEMAKER Image caption, Kevin and John McKearney were attacked in the family butcher shop in Moy
Other former UVF figures have also accused Wright of being an agent.
Former Police Ombudsman Baroness Nuala O’Loan said, “I think we know that Billy Wright was an informant."
She is critical of the government’s legal action, describing it as “absolutely appalling”.
“There is no justification whatsoever for denying them information which may have been of some significance to national security 30 years ago or years ago, but which now cannot, in many cases, be of any significance whatsoever.”
Wright broke away from the UVF in 1996 to form the Loyalist Volunteer Force and was killed in the Maze Prison the following year.
All Troubles-era cases are now being referred to a new body known as the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR).
The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), Jon Boutcher, has said he is prepared to give material to new investigators “without condition and without redaction”.
PSNI chief constable Jon Boutcher IMAGE SOURCE,PA Image caption, The Chief Constable Jon Boutcher said he is prepared to give police material to new investigators
The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office, Lord Caine, encouraged families to work with the ICRIR, external.
“This is now before the courts and we have to await the court’s judgement," he said.
“What I would do, is encourage families who have lost loved ones, or whose loved ones are seriously injured, to work with the new body under the distinguished leadership of Sir Declan Morgan.”
In April it emerged Laurence Maguire would be prosecuted for conspiracy to murder and possession of firearms, following admissions he made to the Spotlight Programme broadcast in 2019.
Spotlight: Killer Secrets is available to watch on the BBC iPlayer and on BBC One Northern Ireland at 22.40 on Tuesday 21 May.

I'm from the west coast my bride is from the midwest, we both live four hours from her home town (we've been here for 9 and seven years respectively now). We got engaged in December and targeted a July wedding as we'd be moving to the east coast in August and wanted to move in together only after being married (we're Christian).
I was extremely maxed out with work and dealing with several family issues this winter including the death of my brother. I wasn't excited about the city of choice, but her mom's friend is a planner and agreed to do a lot for us for basically nothing. I knew i didn't have the capacity or wherewithal to push to my hometown, nor the bandwidth to offer much in the way of planning before summer hit—so I agreed.
We were shooting for less than 200 people (250 max) but now of the ~110 of my invites I've had only ~38 RSVP yes (of those not yet replied I don't expect more than ~10 more).
Aunts, uncles, cousins, close friends from several chapters of life where I was born and raised/lived until I was 27 years old (2015)...cannot make it. Some extenuating reasons, but many because they simply cannot drop ~$1K for RT flights + hotel etc.
I am sad and severely disappointed that I did not push to have the wedding in my hometown. I'm 35 years old, extremely extroverted, I've looked forward to this day for a long time and a huge part of this anticipation was having all of my favorite people in the same place at once.
I don't want to take away from her excitement, (we have ~200 guests) but I had to be honest let her know that I sincerely regret the location choice and that my excitement for wedding day is pretty deflated.
Edit: two things

1. Some have assumed that I've done nothing for our wedding, and put all the burden on her; that is not the case. I merely said we got a planner to help us. I've been active every step of the way and we have each devoted time weekly to tasks related to our wedding. I created our whole guest spreadsheet, designed our invitations, I made our website and registry, and all the other details we've collaborated on. What I said was I didn't have capacity to push for my hometown even though the current reality was a concern for me.
2. A few have mentioned this so I will say, we had already planned to do a smaller second reception in our current city (of which I would be championing most the planning as I will leave my job by June). We have already been floating the idea of nixing that or making it even more of a low key thing at church after service or something at this point, and are strong considering a second reception in my home town. Perhaps i am just in my feelings, but I really don't love the idea of having to plan another thing.